Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
International Energy Agency
Life Cycle Assessment for Cost-Effective Energy and Carbon Emissions Optimization in Building Renovation (Annex 56)
Energy in Buildings and Communities Programme
March 2017
EBC is a programme of the International Energy Agency (IEA)
International Energy Agency
Life Cycle Assessment for Cost-Effective Energy and Carbon Emissions Optimization in Building Renovation (Annex 56)
Energy in Buildings and Communities Programme
March 2017
Authors
Sébastien Lasvaux, University of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland (HES-SO | HEIG-VD),
Solar Energetics and Building Physics Lab, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland
Didier Favre, University of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland (HES-SO | HEIG-VD), Solar
Energetics and Building Physics Lab, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland
Blaise Périsset, University of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland (HES-SO | HEIG-VD),
Solar Energetics and Building Physics Lab, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland
Samir Mahroua, University of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland (HES-SO | HEIG-VD),
Solar Energetics and Building Physics Lab, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland
Stéphane Citherlet, University of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland (HES-SO | HEIG-VD),
Solar Energetics and Building Physics Lab, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland
© Copyright University of Minho 2017
All property rights, including copyright, are vested in University of Minho, Operating
Agent for EBC Annex 56, on behalf of the Contracting Parties of the International
Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for a Programme of Research and
Development on Energy in Buildings and Communities.
In particular, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
University of Minho.
Published by University of Minho, Portugal
Disclaimer Notice: This publication has been compiled with reasonable skill and care.
However, neither University of Minho nor the Contracting Parties of the International
Energy Agency Implementing Agreement for a Programme of Research and
Development on Energy in Buildings and Communities make any representation as to
the adequacy or accuracy of the information contained herein, or as to its suitability
for any particular application, and accept no responsibility or liability arising out of
the use of this publication. The information contained herein does not supersede the
requirements given in any national codes, regulations or standards, and should not be
regarded as a substitute for the need to obtain specific professional advice for any
particular application.
ISBN: 978-989-99799-3-2
Participating countries in EBC: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, P.R. China,
Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
United Kingdom and the United States of America.
Additional copies of this report may be obtained from:
EBC Bookshop
C/o AECOM Ltd
The Colmore Building
Colmore Circus Queensway
Birmingham B4 6AT
United Kingdom
Web: www.iea-ebc.org
Email: [email protected]
iii
Preface
The International Energy Agency
The International Energy Agency (IEA) was established in 1974 within the framework of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to implement an international energy programme. A basic aim
of the IEA is to foster international co-operation among the 29 IEA participating countries and to increase energy
security through energy research, development and demonstration in the fields of technologies for energy efficiency
and renewable energy sources.
The IEA Energy in Buildings and Communities Programme
The IEA co-ordinates international energy research and development (R&D) activities through a comprehensive
portfolio of Technology Collaboration Programmes. The mission of the Energy in Buildings and Communities
(EBC) Programme is to develop and facilitate the integration of technologies and processes for energy efficiency
and conservation into healthy, low emission, and sustainable buildings and communities, through innovation and
research. (Until March 2013, the IEA-EBC Programme was known as the Energy in Buildings and Community
Systems Programme, ECBCS.)
The research and development strategies of the IEA-EBC Programme are derived from research drivers, national
programmes within IEA countries, and the IEA Future Buildings Forum Think Tank Workshops. The research and
development (R&D) strategies of IEA-EBC aim to exploit technological opportunities to save energy in the
buildings sector, and to remove technical obstacles to market penetration of new energy efficient technologies. The
R&D strategies apply to residential, commercial, office buildings and community systems, and will impact the
building industry in five focus areas for R&D activities:
– Integrated planning and building design
– Building energy systems
– Building envelope
– Community scale methods
– Real building energy use
The Executive Committee
Overall control of the IEA-EBC Programme is maintained by an Executive Committee, which not only monitors
existing projects, but also identifies new strategic areas in which collaborative efforts may be beneficial. As the
Programme is based on a contract with the IEA, the projects are legally established as Annexes to the IEA-EBC
Implementing Agreement. At the present time, the following projects have been initiated by the IEA-EBC Executive
Committee, with completed projects identified by (*):
Annex 1: Load Energy Determination of Buildings (*)
Annex 2: Ekistics and Advanced Community Energy Systems (*)
Annex 3: Energy Conservation in Residential Buildings (*)
Annex 4: Glasgow Commercial Building Monitoring (*)
Annex 5: Air Infiltration and Ventilation Centre
Annex 6: Energy Systems and Design of Communities (*)
Annex 7: Local Government Energy Planning (*)
Annex 8: Inhabitants Behaviour with Regard to Ventilation (*)
Annex 9: Minimum Ventilation Rates (*)
Annex 10: Building HVAC System Simulation (*)
Annex 11: Energy Auditing (*)
Annex 12: Windows and Fenestration (*)
Annex 13: Energy Management in Hospitals (*)
Annex 14: Condensation and Energy (*)
Annex 15: Energy Efficiency in Schools (*)
iv
Annex 16: BEMS 1- User Interfaces and System Integration (*)
Annex 17: BEMS 2- Evaluation and Emulation Techniques (*)
Annex 18: Demand Controlled Ventilation Systems (*)
Annex 19: Low Slope Roof Systems (*)
Annex 20: Air Flow Patterns within Buildings (*)
Annex 21: Thermal Modelling (*)
Annex 22: Energy Efficient Communities (*)
Annex 23: Multi Zone Air Flow Modelling (COMIS) (*)
Annex 24: Heat, Air and Moisture Transfer in Envelopes (*)
Annex 25: Real time HVAC Simulation (*)
Annex 26: Energy Efficient Ventilation of Large Enclosures (*)
Annex 27: Evaluation and Demonstration of Domestic Ventilation Systems (*)
Annex 28: Low Energy Cooling Systems (*)
Annex 29: Daylight in Buildings (*)
Annex 30: Bringing Simulation to Application (*)
Annex 31: Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings (*)
Annex 32: Integral Building Envelope Performance Assessment (*)
Annex 33: Advanced Local Energy Planning (*)
Annex 34: Computer-Aided Evaluation of HVAC System Performance (*)
Annex 35: Design of Energy Efficient Hybrid Ventilation (HYBVENT) (*)
Annex 36: Retrofitting of Educational Buildings (*)
Annex 37: Low Exergy Systems for Heating and Cooling of Buildings (LowEx) (*)
Annex 38: Solar Sustainable Housing (*)
Annex 39: High Performance Insulation Systems (*)
Annex 40: Building Commissioning to Improve Energy Performance (*)
Annex 41: Whole Building Heat, Air and Moisture Response (MOIST-ENG) (*)
Annex 42: Simulation of Building-Integrated Fuel Cell and Other Cogeneration Systems (FC+COGEN-SIM) (*)
Annex 43: Testing and Validation of Building Energy Simulation Tools (*)
Annex 44: Integrating Environmentally Responsive Elements in Buildings (*)
Annex 45: Energy Efficient Electric Lighting for Buildings (*)
Annex 46: Holistic Assessment Tool-kit on Energy Efficient Retrofit Measures for Government Buildings (*)
Annex 47: Cost-Effective Commissioning for Existing and Low Energy Buildings (*)
Annex 48: Heat Pumping and Reversible Air Conditioning (*)
Annex 49: Low Exergy Systems for High Performance Buildings and Communities (*)
Annex 50: Prefabricated Systems for Low Energy Renovation of Residential Buildings (*)
Annex 51: Energy Efficient Communities (*)
Annex 52: Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings
Annex 53: Total Energy Use in Buildings: Analysis & Evaluation Methods (*)
Annex 54: Integration of Micro-Generation & Related Energy Technologies in Buildings
Annex 55: Reliability of Energy Efficient Building Retrofitting - Probability Assessment of Performance & Cost
Annex 56: Cost Effective Energy & CO2 Emissions Optimization in Building Renovation
Annex 57: Evaluation of Embodied Energy & CO2 Emissions for Building Construction
Annex 58: Reliable Building Energy Performance Characterisation Based on Full Scale Dynamic Measurements
Annex 59: High Temperature Cooling & Low Temperature Heating in Buildings
Annex 60: New Generation Computational Tools for Building & Community Energy Systems
Annex 61: Business and Technical Concepts for Deep Energy Retrofit of Public Buildings
Annex 62: Ventilative Cooling
Annex 63: Implementation of Energy Strategies in Communities
Annex 64: LowEx Communities - Optimised Performance of Energy Supply Systems with Energy Principles
Annex 65: Long-Term Performance of Super-Insulation in Building Components and Systems
Annex 66: Definition and Simulation of Occupant Behaviour in Buildings
Annex 67: Energy Flexible Buildings
Annex 68: Design and Operational Strategies for High IAQ in Low Energy Buildings
Annex 69: Strategy and Practice of Adaptive Thermal Comfort in Low Energy Buildings
Annex 70: Energy Epidemiology: Analysis of Real Building Energy Use at Scale
Annex 71: Building Energy Performance Assessment Based on In-situ Measurements
Annex 72: Assessing Life Cycle related Environmental Impacts Caused by Buildings
v
Annex 73: Towards Net Zero Energy Public Communities
Annex 74: Energy Endeavour
Annex 75 Cost-effective building renovation at district level combining energy efficiency and renewable
Working Group - Energy Efficiency in Educational Buildings (*)
Working Group - Indicators of Energy Efficiency in Cold Climate Buildings (*)
Working Group - Annex 36 Extension: The Energy Concept Adviser (*)
Working Group - Survey on HVAC Energy Calculation Methodologies for Non-residential Buildings
vi
Management summary Introduction
Buildings are responsible for a major share of energy use and have been a special target in the
global actions for climate change mitigation, with measures that aim at improving their energy
efficiency, reduce carbon emissions and increase renewable energy use.
The IEA-EBC project "Cost-Effective Energy and Carbon Emissions Optimization in Building
Renovation" (Annex 56) intends to develop the basics for future standards, which aim at
maximizing effects on reducing carbon emissions and primary energy use while taking into
account the cost-effectiveness of related measures. The methodology integrates a life cycle
perspective with an environmental Life Cycle assessment (LCA) methodology next to a Life
Cycle Cost (LCC) assessment. The LCA methodology is used in order to be able to quantify the
so-called embodied primary energy and embodied carbon emissions due to the manufacturing,
replacement and end-of-life (e.g., disposal or recycling) of construction materials and building
integrated technical systems (BITS) added during a building renovation.
The embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions of renovation measures originally
represent an increasing share of the remaining overall primary energy use of buildings for new
construction. The increasing building renovation towards nearly zero energy building standard is
expected to lead to a relative increase of embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions. It
is thus important to take these notions into account in the project’s methodology.
Objectives and contents of the LCA report
This report presents the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, its implementation on six
European case studies, the related results and some recommendations related to LCA and the
inclusion of embodied energy in building renovation. This LCA report comprises the following
parts:
− the LCA methodology for energy related building renovation;
− the implementation of the LCA methodology in six case studies;
− the conversion factors used for primary energy and carbon emissions in the case studies
− the analysis of embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions influence in case
studies results;
− recommendations to policy makers and building owners.
vii
Life cycle assessment (LCA) for energy related building renovation
The LCA methodology developed in this project only includes processes with a relevant
contribution to the total environmental impacts of renovated buildings which can be put into
practice with a reasonable effort. Main focus is the integration of embodied energy and related
carbon emissions in the assessments of operational energy use.
Functional unit: In LCA, according to the ISO 14040, the ‘functional unit’ is defined as the
quantification of the performance of a product system, and specifies that is used as the
reference unit for the LCA and any comparative assertion. It has a quantity (e.g. 1 m²), a
duration (e.g. ‘maintaining the function over 50 years’) and a quality e.g. ‘“to ensure a
thermal resistance of 2 m²/W.K’). The term ‘functional equivalent’ is also defined in the
15978 standard (2011) and denotes the technical characteristics and functionalities of the
building that is being assessed. In practice, units and target values for energy use and
carbon emissions in this LCA methodology are expressed in MJ/m2a or kWh/m2a and kg
CO2-equivalents per m2*a (kg CO2e/m
2a). So, in this project, all results are expressed per
unit of surface area per year after having divided the LCA results calculated for the
reference study period of the building.
System boundaries: LCA shall be integrated in the assessment and in the optimization of
renovation measures. The Life Cycle (LC) impacts of renovation packages are determined
by comparing them with the LC impacts of a corresponding renovation solution which occurs
«anyway» and which aims at restoring full functionality of the building not improving energy
efficiency yet. Hence only LC impacts of measures that affect energy performance of the
building are considered (thermal envelope, building integrated technical systems (BITS),
energy use for on-site production and delivered energy). Thereby this LCA methodology
only includes the operational and embodied energy use and related carbon emissions.
Temporal System boundary: The temporal system boundary for LCA comprises the different
stages of the life cycle of building renovation measures (see Figure 1). At least the green
stages from Figure 1 are supposed to be taken into account for life cycle assessments in
this project. Generally, the time range for LCA (reference study period) should comprise at
least the service life time of the building elements with the longest service life. In addition, it
is suggested to use a study period of 60 years and to report it if a different period is used.
Physical system boundary: The physical system boundary for LCA defines the materials and
energy fluxes which must be taken into account for the LCA. The main impacts stem from
construction elements and building integrated technical systems (BITS). The construction
elements consist of one or more materials. The BITS consist of components (boilers,
pumps, etc.) which are made of materials. In addition, these components use one or more
energy vectors. The LC impacts are caused by envelope materials and/or BITS components
which are added or replaced by energy related renovation measures as well as by
operational energy use of BITS during building operation to deliver the expected energy
viii
services (heating, cooling, DHW production, etc.), without accounting for those elements
which would be replaced anyway.
Figure 1 Schematic breakdown of a building’s life cycle into elementary stages adapted from EN 15978
standard modules’ names; the module D “benefits and loads beyond the system boundary” is
not reported here
ix
Calculation rules for the operational energy use: The LCA for the operational energy use
comprises the following mandatory energy services:
− Heating;
− Domestic hot water (DHW);
− Air conditioning (cooling & (de)humidifying);
− Ventilation;
− Lighting;
− Auxiliary (pumps, control devices, etc.);
− Integration of energy use from common appliances and home appliances e.g., the white
appliances remain optional, it can be included but has to be reported and documented in
a transparent way.
In this LCA methodology, the on-site produced energy is in priority allocated to the building
related energy use to comply with EN 15978 (2011), the rest being allocated to the non-building
related energy use. Similarly, while an hourly approach is probably the most accurate according
to the findings of the IEA Task 40/Annex 52 project, the current energy codes or regulations do
not require it as a compulsory approach. In this project, the calculation rules for the LCA are
thus based on the energy needs calculated with a steady state approach, determining yearly
energy demand as building energy codes and labels only calculate the energy consumption and
on-site generation on an annual balance.
Calculation rules for the construction materials and BITS:
Elements to include: The system boundary to perform an LCA of a renovated building
should include the following elements:
− The materials added for energy related renovation measures of the thermal envelope of
the building;
− The materials added for energy related renovation measures for the building integrated
technical systems (BITS), including on-site energy generation units (PV, solar thermal,
etc.);
− The materials added to provide the same building function before and after renovation.
Service life and replacement: The service life is defined as the time during which a
building component (construction element, BITS component (boiler, etc.)) fulfils its function.
At the end of its service life, the component must be replaced. Not all layers (materials) of a
x
building element are replaced at the same time, some are never replaced (e.g., the bearing
structure).
− Some heavy layers are part of the element structure but might still be replaced during
the life cycle of the building.
− A material placed between two layers of the envelope structure will have the same
service life as the layer with the shorter service life.
− If a construction element is designed to make it easy to replace some internal parts, only
the replaced material is taken into account for the assessment.
Hence, the service life of materials depends on the type of construction element (wall, floor,
roof, etc.), the situation of the construction element (against ground, exterior and interior)
and the position of the material layer within the construction element.
Figure 2 presents the different aspects that need to be included in the LCA of a renovated
building.
Figure 2 Aspects to be included in the LCA of renovated buildings: materials for the building envelope
and for the BITS and the operational energy use
Energy used by the technical building systems after renovationDuring the reference period of the study
Materials added and replaced during the reference period of the study for energy related renovation measures of
the building thermal envelope
Materials added and replaced during the reference period of the study for energy related renovation measures of
the building integrated technical systems
HeatingDomestic hot water
Air conditioning (cooling, (de)humdifier)
VentilationLighting
Auxiliary (pumps, control, …)
Common appliances (lifts, escalators, etc.)
Home appliances(Oven, refrigerator, computers, TV, …)
Materials for energy production and distribution(Boiler, PV panels, bore-hole, pipes, radiators, …)
Materials for the building thermal envelope(windows, thermal insulation, …)
Materials replaced to provide the same function(balcony, cladding, …)
Mandatory in Annex 56
Optional in Annex 56(documented)
not considered in Annex 56
xi
Environmental indicators: the number of indicators used in this project has been limited to the
three following indicators:
− Total Primary Energy (PEt). It represents total primary energy used, renewable or not
including feedstock (e.g., materials produced from crude oil, plastic products, wood
products) and process primary energy. It includes the non-renewable part (fossil,
nuclear, primary forests) as well as the renewable part (hydro, solar, wind, biomass). In
this project, PEt is expressed in [kWh]1.
− Non-renewable Primary Energy (PEnr). It represents the non-renewable part of the
total primary energy, i.e the non-renewable primary energy used including feedstock
(e.g., materials produced from crude oil, plastic products) and process primary energy. It
indicates the depletion of non-renewable energy sources (at a human scale), such as
fossil fuels, nuclear resources and primary forests. PEnr is also expressed in [kWh].
− Carbon emissions. This indicator is related to the emissions of greenhouse gases. It is
not measured in an absolute unity, because each gas has a different global warming
potential on the greenhouse effect (for the same quantity). In this project, their potential
is compared to the CO2 used as reference for a period of 100 years. This indicator is
expressed in [kg- CO2e]2.
Reference study period:
Cost and LCA are carried out on the basis of a chosen reference study period, for which all
contributions of materials and energy consumed are calculated. Therefore, the reference period
has an important and direct influence on the results. It should be noticed, that the number of
energy related renovations during the building's life is limited. The more the building achieves
low energy consumption after renovation, the less a major energy related renovation will be
undertaken in the future. It is impossible to know, which materials will be used to replace the
energy related construction material in the future. It is also impossible to know which future
energy vectors will be used when the boiler will be replaced (in about 30 year). In that context,
the reference study period should be equal or longer than the service life of the energy related
building components analysed in order to avoid any misinterpretation of the results. Therefore, it
is suggested to use a reference study period of 60 years. If another reference study period is
used, it should be reported and documented.
1 It is likely that not all countries have primary energy data included fossil, nuclear and primary forests. In that case, adaptation of life
cycle inventory and LCA data from existing life cycle assessment databases (e.g., the ecoinvent v3 database) could be a solution to
derive country-specific data with the different types of primary energy as defined in this project .
2 The reader should notice that the labelling of this indicator i.e., “carbon emissions” is chosen to comply with the title of this project.
However, this indicator quantifies the equivalent CO2 emissions in the same way as did the greenhouse gases emissions indicator e.g., used in the IEA EBC Annex 57 project.
xii
Implementation of the LCA methodology in building renovation case studies
The LCA methodology was implemented in six case studies of multi-family residential buildings
located in Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden. Case studies
represent residential and non-technical office buildings (not having air conditioning). All these
case studies have renovation measures for both the envelope and the BITS while a few of them
integrate also renewable energy systems (e.g., use of PV panels). Table 5 presents a brief
overview of these case studies.
Table 1: Overview of case studies used for the LCA
Country Before After Site Building
type
Year(s) of
construction
Year(s) of
renovation GHFA3
Austria
Johann-
Böhmstraße,
Kapfenberg
Multi-family
building 1960 – 1961 2012 – 2014 2845 m²
Czech
Republic
Kamínky 5,
Brno
Elementary
School 1987 2009 – 2010 9909 m²
Denmark
Traneparken,
Hvalsø
Multi-family
Building 1969 2011-2012 5293 m³
Portugal
Neighborhood
RDL, Porto
Two-family
Building 1953 2012 123 m²
Spain
Lourdes
Neighborhood,
Tudela
Multi-family
Building 1970 2011 1474 m²
Sweden
Backa röd,
Gothenburg
Multi-family
Building 1971 2009 1357 m²
3 Gross Heated Floor Area (GHFA) after the renovation of the building
xiii
For the six investigated case studies, parametric studies were performed to identify the cost
effective renovations for the individual real building renovations. The parametric studies were
performed based on the developed methodology including the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)4.
For the case studies, each partner defined the characteristics of the investigated renovation
packages according to what is feasible in each country. The idea was to include different
thermal standards (insulation of building envelope) and different energy sources for heating and
domestic hot water preparation (fossil fuels and renewables) as well as different ventilation
situations (mechanical and natural) in the considerations.
The reference case include only renovation measures which have to be carried out anyway.
Therefore the reference case is named as “anyway renovation”. Then, the investigated
renovation packages are named in further consequence “renovation package v1”, “renovation
package v2” and “renovation package v3”, where v3 represents the actually renovation carried
out. More detailed information about the description of the different renovation measures of
each country can be found in the findings and conclusions of the case studies report (Venus et
al, 2015) 5.
Embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions results from case studies
The LCA of each renovation package and each case study was evaluated according to the total
carbon emissions, the Non-Renewable Primary Energy (NRPE) and the total Primary Energy
(PE) indicators. The analyses focus on the relevance of including embodied energy and
embodied carbon emissions in each renovation measure.
In this study, the following questions were addressed:
− How much operational primary energy and carbon emissions is saved compared to the
additional embodied primary energy consumption and carbon emissions?
− The operational primary energy and carbon emissions6 savings compared to embodied
primary energy consumption and carbon emissions
4 More information to the developed methodology can be found on the official IEA EBC Annex 56 website:
http://www.iea-annex56.org/
The Methodology report can be downloaded here:
http://www.iea-annex56.org/Groups/GroupItemID6/STA_methods_impacts_report.pdf
5 For a detailed description of the renovation scenarios (v1, v2, and v3) for each case study, please look at pages 49-56
6 carbon emissions refer in IEA EBC Annex 56 to the greenhouse gases emissions’ indicator
xiv
− Does the integration of embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions in the
calculations change the choice of the optimal renovation concept for the carbon
emissions, primary energy (total) and primary energy (non renewable) indicators?
The choice of these research questions was motivated by the scope of the project i.e., the
determination of cost-effective building renovation packages using a methodology integrating
not only the operational primary energy and carbon emissions but also the embodied energy
and carbon emissions due to the construction materials and BITS. In that specific context, the
influence of integrating the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions of materials for
the envelope and for the BITS needs to be analyzed.
Indeed, in this chapter two hypotheses related to the influence of embodied energy and carbon
emissions were assessed and validated. These hypotheses are:
1. The operational savings are higher than the additional embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions in any cost-effective renovation measures.
2. The integration of embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions does not change the cost-effective renovation packages.
As an illustration of all the results, the next figure presents the results without including
embodied carbon emissions and with embodied carbon emissions (results represented with a
black edge), for the different renovation packages of the six case studies.
xv
Figure 3 Comparison of calculations for the six case studies, without including embodied carbon
emissions and with embodied carbon emissions (results represented with a black edge), for
the different renovation packages
Austria Czech Republic
Denmark
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
xvi
Global results show that the inclusion of embodied energy and carbon emissions in the Annex
56 methodology does neither change the cost-effective solutions nor the best renovation
packages in terms of total primary energy (TPE), non-renewable primary energy (NRPE) and
carbon emissions.
Based on these results, for all the cost-effective renovation measures of each case study, the
operational savings where compared with the embodied energy or embodied carbon emissions.
As an illustration, Figure 4 presents the results for the particular case of Sweden were four out
of nine renovation packages were cost-effective.
Figure 4 Comparison of operational carbon emissions and total primary energy savings and additional
embodied carbon emissions and total primary energy for the cost-effective solutions of the
Swedish case studies; the negative bars represent the operational savings while the positive
bars represent the additional embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions
Similar results can be retrieved from all case studies and are presented in details in the
following report. Finally, summary of findings are presented below:
1. The operational savings of the energy related renovation measures assessed are higher than the additional embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions in any cost-effective renovation measures.
2. The integration of embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions of the energy related renovation measures assessed does not change the cost-effective renovation packages. It only reduces the achievable savings.
xvii
In addition, the payback times for the initial embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions
(i.e., for the manufacturing of construction materials and BITS) is rather low and is about 1 to 12
years in all the cost-effective renovation measures7. As a result, the initial hypotheses related to
the influence of embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions were verified for all cost-
effective solutions.
The integration of LCA in the Annex 56 methodology enables to adopt a life cycle perspective in
energy-related building renovation by taking into account not only operational energy but also
embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions related to the manufacturing, replacement
and end-of-life (e.g., disposal or recycling) of construction materials used for the envelope and
BITS.
Embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions are not found very influential in the project’s
building renovation case studies8 because of the focus towards cost-effective renovation
solutions (in other words, the cost-effective solutions “limit” the influence of the embodied
energy). However, these results do not mean a LCA approach is not relevant for building
renovation. In fact, it is now well accepted in Europe that the primary energy and carbon
emissions optimization for both new and existing buildings should be done using a life cycle
perspective. This perspective is particularly valid for nearly zero carbon emissions or nearly zero
energy renovation, for which the relative contribution of the embodied energy or embodied
carbon emissions is likely to rise as far as the renovation becomes significant9. Indeed,
generally speaking, an optimum where the operational energy use reduction balances the
increase of the embodied energy use can be determined.
Recommendations for policy makers
In that context, LCA will be in the near future more and more used in public policies to support a
sound implementation of energy efficiency measures.
To date, LCA is already linked to some EU regulations related to the environmental impacts of
building products and technical systems. The existing Construction Products Regulation (CPR)
contains additional Basic (Work) Requirements (BWR), particularly the addition of ‘environment’
7 It should be highlighted that this payback time only captures the initial embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions relat ed to the
manufacturing. In that sense, it does not account for the recurring embodied energy and embodied carbon related to the replacement of components over the service life of the building.
8 This result can be explained by the limited scope of the LCA system boundaries only taking into account the materials and BITS than
have an influence on the energy performance of the building. This choice does not consider in the embodied energy and embodied
carbon emissions the other possible replacement of materials (interior walls, floor coatings etc.) and BITS (e.g., sanitary a nd electric
equipment)
9 However, in opposite, the measures are not sure to remain cost-effective
xviii
to BWR 3 (hygiene and health) and the new BWR 7 (Sustainable use of natural resources),
stating that “Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) should be used when available for the
assessment of the sustainable use of resources and of the impact of construction works on the
environment” (CPR 2011). In this last example, LCA is used as the basis for product
assessments, and especially in providing Environmental Product Declaration (EPDs), which
form an important data source in Europe for building LCA studies both new or renovation
projects according to the EN 15804 and EN 15978 standards.
In that context, it becomes clear that LCA is more and more used as a policy instrument at
different levels (products and buildings). The next step is to integrate it in energy efficient
related policies for buildings. For instance, LCA can contribute to switch from the limited scope
within the recast of the Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD) of the European
Union10 (assessment of the operational energy use) towards a broader scope (life cycle
perspective from “cradle-to-grave”) and a broader set of environmental indicators to assess
building renovation projects.
The recent European Commission Communication on Sustainable Buildings is clearly promoting
the alignment of energy efficiency policies with LCA related aspects mentioning that:
“Existing policies for promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in buildings need to
be complemented with policies for resource efficiency which look at a wider range of
environmental impacts across the life-cycle of buildings” (European Commission, 2012).
As a result, the following recommendations to policy makers can be drawn for the integration of
LCA in building renovation policies.
10 European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2010) Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the counc il
of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast);
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012, supplementing Directive 2010/31EU on the energy performance of buildings, establishing a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost -optimal levels of minimum energy
performance requirements for buildings and building elements;
Directive 212/2/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC;
European Commission, Guidelines accompanying Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012,
supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings, 2012 /C 115/01;
European Commission, Guidelines accompanying Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012,
supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings, 2012 /C
115/01;
European Commission (2011), Meeting Document for the Expert Workshop on the comparative framework methodology for cost
optimal minimum energy performance requirements In preparation of a delegated act in accordance with Art 29 0 TF EU 6 May 2011 in Brussels;
xix
General recommendation for the use of LCA in building renovation (policy makers):
1) If the goal is to increase the energy efficiency of a renovated building, new policy in the field should include a life cycle perspective to require the assessment, next to the operational energy use, the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions. By doing so, the upcoming policies will contribute to globally minimise the primary energy or carbon emissions of energy-efficient renovation measures.
2) If a LCA is to be promoted in the new policy, precise rules should be developed using the best practice e.g., available LCA database, LCA methodology (e.g., detailed in technical reports or standards) and LCA target values for renovated buildings11
Recommendations for professional owners
The previous recommendations for policy makers are also relevant for professional owners.
Indeed, once public policies will integrate LCA as a basis of the new assessment framework for
a building renovation, professional owners will be likely to use it as part of their decision making
tools.
In line with the other IEA EBC parallel project (Annex 57), further recommendations can be
drawn for decision makers like the professional owners (Lützkendorf et al, 2016). They may be
interested to reduce the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions of their renovation
measures.
Materials and BITS choice to reduce embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions
They should also use construction materials and BITS during a renovation with a minimum
embodied energy and embodied carbon value. This choice should be verified by taking also into
account the operational energy consumption. This life cycle perspective allows appropriate
renovation strategies to be implemented by the professional owners.
Tools for the assessment of materials choice
More and more assessment tools are developed to link embodied energy with operational
energy use enabling to identify trade-offs and finally select the most appropriate renovation
measure in terms of primary energy or carbon emissions (Passer et al, 2016). Professional
owners are recommended to use the existing web-based and software tools that can be used at
different stages of the design process to assist them in this task. Some tools combine both a
3D-modeling of the building, an energy calculation and a LCA. The tools can also integrate the
11 For instance, in Switzerland, database (KBOB), methodology and tools (e.g., the SIA 2031, SIA 2032, SIA 2039 and SIA 2040
technical books) and target values (available in the SIA 2040 target values) allow a practitioner to address this recommendat ion. Similar tools and methodologies are in development or already exist in Europe with a varying level of maturity
xx
Building Information Modelling (BIM) approach to ease the assessment. Many tools already
exist and a detailed review of existing tools incorporating LCA can be found in the EeBGuide
Infohub (Lasvaux et Gantner, 2012). For the professional owners interested in using compliant
Annex 56 tools, they can use e.g. the Eco-bat (and new Eco-sai) tool developed in Switzerland
as well as the ASCOT tool developed in Denmark.
Recommendation for the use of LCA in building renovation (professional owners):
1) If the goal is to increase the energy efficiency of a renovated building, a LCA perspective should be used to assess, next to the operational energy use, the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions. By doing so, solutions that globally minimise the primary energy or carbon emissions indicators could be promoted.
2) If a LCA is conducted by the decision maker, use the best practice in the corresponding country e.g., available LCA database, LCA methodology (e.g., detailed in technical reports or standards) and LCA target values for renovated buildings12
Table of content
12 For instance, in Switzerland, database (KBOB), methodology and tools (e.g., the SIA 2031, SIA 2031, SIA 2039 and SIA 2040
technical books) and target values (available in the SIA 2040 target values) allow a practitioner to address this recommendation. Similar tools and methodologies are in development or already exist in Europe with a varying level of maturity
xxi
Abbreviations 1
Definitions 1
1. Introduction 3
1.1. General context 3
1.2. Contents of this report 4
2. Life cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology for energy related building renovation 5
2.1. Introduction 5
2.2. Existing LCA methodologies for buildings 6
2.3. Functional unit 7
2.3.1. Functional unit 7
2.4. Environmental indicators for the LCA 8
2.5. System boundaries 9
2.5.1. Object of assessment, physical and temporal system boundaries 9
2.5.2. Temporal system boundary 9
2.5.3. Physical system boundary 13
2.6. Calculation rules for the materials used for the envelope and BITS including the replacement 15
2.7. Distinction between embodied and operational primary energy and carbon emissions 18
2.8. Calculation rules for the operational energy use 19
2.8.1. Energy services included 19
2.8.2. Time step for the calculation of the energy balance of building renovation scenarios with on-
site renewable energy generation 21
2.8.3. Allocation rules for on-site renewable energy generation systems 23
2.8.4. Primary energy and carbon emissions factors for the electricity mix 26
2.9. Reference study period of the renovated building 27
3. Implementation of the LCA methodology in building renovation case studies 29
3.1. Inter-comparison of LCA tools on a simple case study 29
3.2. Primary energy and carbon emission conversion factors of the project’s case studies 30
3.3. Templates for reporting LCA results of case studies 32
3.4. Overview of case studies 34
3.5. Investigated renovation packages and reference case 35
3.5.1. Austria 37
3.5.2. Czech Republic 38
xxii
3.5.3. Denmark 39
3.5.4. Portugal 40
3.5.5. Spain 41
3.5.6. Sweden 42
4. LCA results: embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions in building renovation case studies43
4.1. Scope for the analysis of LCA results 43
4.2. Results with and without taking into account embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions 44
4.3. Operational savings compared to embodied energy and carbon emissions for cost-effective
renovation measures 49
4.4. Embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions payback times 53
4.5. Summary of findings 55
5. Recommendations 57
5.1. Recommendations for policy makers 58
5.2. Recommendations for professional owners 60
6. Conclusions 62
7. Appendix 1: additional information for the LCA methodology of energy related building renovation 63
7.1. Components and materials included in the LCA of energy related renovation measures 63
7.2. Service life and replacement period 66
7.3. Reference assessment period of the renovated building 69
8. Appendix 2: inter-comparison exercise for building LCA tools 70
8.1. Building description 70
8.2. Methodology for the inter-comparison of LCA tools on a test building 71
8.2.1. Life cycle stages 71
8.2.2. Service lives 71
8.3. Construction elements 72
8.3.1. Windows and doors 72
8.3.2. Wood façade 73
8.3.3. Masonry façade against exterior 73
8.3.4. Masonry façade against garage 74
8.3.5. Ground floor 74
8.3.6. Floor above garage 74
8.3.7. Roof 75
xxiii
8.4. Building integrated technical systems 75
8.5. Operational energy consumption 76
8.6. Primary energy and carbon emissions conversion factors 76
9. Appendix 3: Integrated Performance View (IPV) template 78
10. References 80
1
Abbreviations
Table 2 List of frequently used abbreviations
Abbreviations Meaning
AHU Air Handling Unit
BITS Building integrated technical systems
COP Coefficient of Performance
DHW Domestic hot water
EBC Energy in Buildings and Communities Programme
EPBD Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
GHG Greenhouse gases
GWP Global Warming Potential
IEA-EBC Energy in Buildings and Communities Programme of the International Energy Agency
kWh Kilowatt hours: 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCI Life cycle inventory
LCIA Life cycle impact assessment
MJ Mega joule; 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ
MVHR Mechanical ventilation heat recovery
NRPE Non-renewable primary energy
NZEB Nearly zero energy building or nearly zero emissions building
PE Primary energy
PV Photovoltaic (cell or panel)
Ref Reference
RES Renewable energy sources
RSP Reference study period
SFP Specific fan power
TPE Total Primary energy
Definitions
Definitions of embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions (according to this
project), life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
according to ISO 14040:2006:
− Allocation: The sub-division of input and output flows between one or more product
systems
− Embodied energy: Comprises the cumulated primary energy use for the production,
transportation, replacement and disposal of building components for the thermal
2
envelope and building integrated technical systems (e.g., renewable energy generation
units, heating systems) used in energy related building renovation. In addition, the
embodied energy also includes the anyway renovation actions with materials and
technical systems added to restore the functionality of the building after renovation (e.g.,
painting or repair of a wooden frame, replacement of a conventional heating system with
a heating system of the same type etc.). The assessment of the embodied energy is
done in this project used a LCA methodology.
− Embodied carbon emissions: Comprise the cumulated greenhouse gas emissions for
the production, transportation, replacement and disposal of building components for the
thermal envelope and for building integrated technical systems (e.g., renewable energy
generation units, heating systems) used in energy related building renovation. The
assessment of the embodied carbon emissions is done in this project used a LCA
methodology.
− Embodied impacts (from IEA-EBC Annex 57): Embodied impacts refer to the
environmental impacts that arise in the life cycle of a construction materials or a BITS
due to their production, transport, replacement and end-of-life; in this project the
embodied impacts correspond to the so-called embodied energy and embodied carbon
emissions.
− LCA: Life cycle assessment: Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the
potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle.
− LCIA: Life cycle impact assessment: Phase of life cycle assessment aimed at
understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the potential
environmental impacts of a product system.
Note 1: In this report, the term “LCA” will be used for describing the methodology used to
assess the environmental impacts of energy related building renovation while the term “LCIA”
will only refer to the step of the impact calculations within this methodology.
Note 2: According to the EBC-decision, the term “carbon emissions” used in all related Annex
56 reports represents all greenhouse gas emissions expressed in kg CO2-eq and not only CO2
emissions. It is chosen to be consistent with the title of Annex 56 project. As a result, the
“carbon emissions” term will solely be used in this report.
3
1. Introduction
1.1. General context
Several standards regarding energy consumption have emerged in the last decade, defining
increasing requirements, and culminating with the recent emergence of the “nearly-zero energy”
buildings concept. However, these standards are mainly focused on new buildings ignoring,
most of the time, the existing ones that represent the least efficient, the largest consumers and
the largest share of the building stock. These standards do not respond effectively to the
numerous technical, functional and economic constraints of this kind of buildings resulting,
many times, in very expensive measures and complex procedures, hardly accepted by owners
or promoters.
Having in mind the overall objective of slowing down climate change, measures for the use of
renewable energy can be as effective as energy conservation and efficiency measures and
sometimes be obtained in a more cost effective way. In existing buildings, the most cost-
effective renovation solution is often a combination of energy efficiency measures and
measures for the use of renewable energy. Hence, it is relevant to understand how far it is
possible to go with energy conservation and efficiency measures (initially often less expensive
measures) and from which point the use of renewables become more economical and
environmental considering the local context. In the same time, it is important to address the life
cycle related impacts of such measures by using a life cycle perspective for the building
renovation with the quantification of primary energy or carbon emissions of the operational
energy use but also of the added materials and technical systems used during the renovation.
These last aspects refer to the so-called “embodied energy” or “embodied carbon emissions” of
construction materials or BITS and need a life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to be
correctly determined. As an illustration, Figure 5 presents the general concept of the building
renovation concepts used in this project with two types of actions:
1. Reduction of energy demand and carbon emissions by energy conservation and efficiency
measures
2. Supply with renewable energy and on-site RES to satisfy the remaining energy demand as
much as possible
4
Figure 5 Schematic representation of the effect of energy related renovation measures compared to the
existing situation.
For a sound building renovation, both minimization of demand and the increase of efficiency
and use of renewables are relevant to reduce e.g., the primary energy demand of the
operational phase. However, as illustrated in Figure 5, each of these measures will also be
responsible for a certain amount of embodied energy related to the materials added for the
enveloppe or the BITS. Indeed, the more the building energy demand is minimized, the more
embodied energy is likely to be needed for the materials of the enveloppe (e.g., insulation) or for
the BITS (e.g., replacement of the heat pump or boiler). As different renovation measures can
be taken, it will result in different operational energy savings and embodied energy values.
As the embodied energy are likely to influence the global primary energy assessment of each
renovation measure, there is a need to address the calculation of embodied energy (or
embodied carbon emissions) in a consistent way i.e., by defining a consistent LCA methodology
to calculate these values.
1.2. Contents of this report
This report delivers the methodological guidelines for the LCA of energy-related building
renovation. It presents:
− the state-of-the-art of LCA applied in the building sector;
− the LCA methodology used in this project;
− its implementation on the project’s case studies and the related results focusing on the
relevance of the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions aspects;
− relevant recommendations for policy makers and professional owners.
5
2. Life cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology for energy related building renovation
The purpose of this section is to present the methodology developed in this project for
assessing the environmental impacts of renovated buildings. The proposed methodology is
based on the state of the art of the life cycle assessment (LCA) for buildings. It includes only
processes having a relevant contribution to the total environmental impacts of renovated
buildings. The methodology is defined to be put into practice in a reasonable amount of time.
Some LCA methodological principles have already been described in chapters 2 and 3 of the
Methodology Report (Ott et al, 2015). They provide summarized information to the LCA
methodology presented in this report.
2.1. Introduction
The assessment of the performance of a building can be based on several indicators, such as
cost, operational energy use, environmental impacts and energy use of building components
and materials. Whatever the indicators used, the generic pattern of its time evolution can be
schematised as shown in Figure 6.
Building construction generates certain initial impacts and costs. During the building operation,
there is a flow of yearly operational impacts and costs, primarily due to the energy use. After
carrying out a building renovation, there is a new step-like increase of the impacts and costs
due to the refurbishment of building elements and technical systems. The importance of this
contribution depends on the implemented renovation scenario. During the building operation
after renovation, the flow of yearly impacts and costs mainly due to energy use will also depend
on the implemented scenario as shown in Figure 6. The more complete and ambitious the
energy related renovation package the higher is the initial step of impacts due to the renovation
and the lower are the impacts of subsequent building operation).
The main goal of this project is to find scenarios with the lowest impacts and costs during the
reference study period. The reference case is based on “anyway renovations” (concept
described in Ott et al (2015)), which restore the full functionality of the building but do not
improve the energy performance of the building.
6
Figure 6 Schematic representation of the effect of energy related renovation measures compared to the
existing situation.
Usually, the more sophisticated efficiency related renovation measures, the higher the (initial)
investment costs at this point of time and the lower operational energy costs over time (can be
observed in the graph by a less inclined cost curve). Scenario 1 increases energy
performance most. Consequently initial investment costs are the highest but yearly operational
cost the lowest (flattest cost curve over time).
In this project, the LCA is used to compare the environmental impacts of energy related
renovation measures. Therefore, it will take into account only measures that affect the energy
performance of the building (thermal envelope, building integrated technical systems and
energy use for on-site production and delivered energy). Renovation measures which are not
related to the energy performance of the building (e.g. such as changing the kitchen sinks) are
not included in the assessment of the energy related renovation measures.
2.2. Existing LCA methodologies for buildings
During the last decade, many LCA methodologies have been published at national and
international levels in order to present solutions to perform building LCA. These include, for
instance, generic approaches such as the ones presented in ISO 14040 and followings (ISO
14040, 2006) or the ILCD Handbook (European Commission, 2011). Although these general
LCA approaches tend to present a methodology as complete as possible, they are generally not
Time
Co
stIm
pa
cts
(GW
P,
Pri
ma
ry e
ne
rgy)
Bu
ildin
gco
nst
ruct
ion
Building Renovation
(various scenarios) Scenario 5
Building operation
Payback time
Scenario 6
Scenario 4
Scenario 3
Scenario 2
Scenario 1
Building operation(renovated)
(existing building)
Building not renovated
Anyway renovation
7
fully applicable in the building practice, because of the lack of information and guidance for
building application. To that purpose, building oriented approaches have been developed such
as the EN 15978 (EN 15978, 2011) or the EeBGuide operational guidance document for
buildings (Wittstock et al., 2012b) and for building products (Wittstock et al., 2012a). The
EeBGuide and the related EN 15978 standard are the latest attempts to propose harmonized
guidelines for building LCA at the European level (Lasvaux et al, 2014). At national level, some
methodologies have also been developed e.g., in Switzerland with the series of technical books
SIA 2032, SIA 2039 and SIA 2040 to assess the embodied primary energy and the operational
primary energy due to the operational energy (for heating, ventilation, cooling etc.) and due to
the transportation of the occupants of the building (mobility aspects).
The LCA methodology in this project is a compromise, taking into account several constrains
such as:
− Coherence with existing approaches mentioned above;
− Inclusion of the relevant sources of impacts in the case of building renovation;
− Availability of information (especially for existing buildings);
− Time and resources required to find the information.
Each part of the LCA methodology is presented in the next sections.
2.3. Functional unit
2.3.1. Functional unit
In LCA, according to the ISO 14040, the ‘functional unit’ is defined as the quantification of the
performance of a product system, and is used as the reference unit for the LCA and any
comparative assertion. It has a quantity (e.g. 1 m²), a duration (e.g. ‘maintaining the function
over 50 years’) and a quality e.g. ‘“to ensure a thermal resistance of 2 m²/W.K’). The term
‘functional equivalent’ is also defined in the EN 15978 standard (2011) and denotes the
technical characteristics and functionalities of the building that is being assessed.
In practice, units and target values for energy use and carbon emissions in the LCA
methodology are expressed in MJ/m2a or kWh/m2a and kg CO2-equivalents per m2*a (kg
CO2e/m2a). In certain cases, it might also be preferable to have additionally "person" as
functional unit since DHW and electricity use are rather depending on the number of persons
than on the area [m2] of (conditioned) net or gross floor area. However, in this project, all results
are expressed per unit of surface area per year after having divided the LCA results calculated
for the reference study period of the building (see chapter 2.9).
8
2.4. Environmental indicators for the LCA
Many indicators have been developed in LCA, describing environmental impacts (global
warming, ozone depletion, acidification, etc.), resource use (energy and raw materials depletion,
etc.) or additional environmental information (hazardous waste, etc.). Some documents, such as
EN 15978, may recommend to use a wide range of indicators. But from a practical point of view,
comparing different renovation scenarios would become very tedious if more than a few
indicators are compared. Therefore, it is important to implement a reduced number of indicators
according to the following principles:
− The indicators should achieve widespread consensus and acceptance among the
scientific communities. This would reject indicators such as human toxicity, biodiversity,
Eco-indicator, Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Design (EPS) or Ecoscarcity
(UBP).
− The building sector must have a significant share on the world or local contribution for
this indicator (the latter if local impacts matter most).
− The data for components and energy vectors used in the building sector should be
available for the indicator.
According to these criteria, the number of indicators used in this project has been limited to the
three following indicators:
− Total Primary Energy (TPE). It represents total primary energy used13, renewable or
not. It includes the non-renewable part (fossil, nuclear, primary forests) as well as the
renewable part (hydro, solar, wind, biomass). In this report, PE is expressed in [kWh].
− Non-renewable Primary Energy (NRPE). It represents the non-renewable part of the
total primary energy, i.e., the non-renewable primary energy used. It indicates the
depletion of non-renewable energy sources (at a human scale), such as fossil fuels,
nuclear resources and primary forests. NRPE is also expressed in [kWh].
− Carbon emissions. This indicator is related to the emissions of greenhouse gases. It is
not measured in an absolute unity, because each gas has a different global warming
potential on the greenhouse effect (for the same quantity). In this project, their potential
is compared to the CO2 used as reference for a period of time of 100 years. This
indicator is expressed in [kg- CO2e]14.
13 For the primary energy assessment, other terms and abbreviations can be found in the existing literature (e.g., the Cumulative Energy
Demand concept) but it is beyond the scope of this report to review all of them.
14 The reader should notice that the labelling of this indicator i.e., “carbon emissions” is chosen to comply with the title of this project.
However, this indicator quantifies the equivalent CO2 emissions in the same way as the greenhouse gases emissions indicator e.g., used in the IEA EBC Annex 57 project.
9
These indicators describe primary energy consumption and carbon emissions. They are
consistent with the work and recommendations of the IEA-EBC Annex 57 project "Evaluation of
Embodied Energy and CO2 Emissions for Building Construction" (Lützkendorf et al, 2014).
2.5. System boundaries
2.5.1. Object of assessment, physical and temporal system boundaries
To perform a LCA of a package of renovation measures, it is mandatory to define the following
system boundaries:
− Temporal system boundary (see chapter 2.5.2): It defines the elementary stages which
have to be included, occurring during the life cycle of the building;
− Physical system boundary (see chapter 2.5.3): It defines all materials and energy flows
to be included in the assessment.
The following chapters define these system boundaries in more detail. The object of
assessment is the renovation package with resulting energy savings, carbon emissions
reductions and possibly with its embodied energy effects over its life cycle.
2.5.2. Temporal system boundary
Many breakdowns of the building life cycle into the relevant stages have been proposed within
the last decade (Citherlet, 2001; EN 15978, 2011; Wittstock et al., 2012b) and similar
breakdowns can be used for building renovation. A generic breakdown into elementary stages
and the boundaries of the main stages based on the EN 15978 standard are presented in
Figure 7.
10
Figure 7 Schematic breakdown of a building’s life cycle into elementary stages adapted from EN 15978
standard modules’ names; the module D “benefits and leads beyond the system boundary” is
not reported here
11
The different life cycle stages shown in Figure 7 are defined as follows:
− Materials production stage (Modules A1-A3): The boundary of this stage covers the
'cradle to gate' processes for manufacturing the materials used in the construction
elements and technical systems. It includes all processes from the raw materials
extraction to the final products (brick, insulation panel, boiler, pipes, etc.) at the gate of
the factory ready to be delivered.
− Building construction process stage (Modules A4-A5): The boundary of this stage
encompasses the transportation of the materials and construction equipment (cranes,
scaffolding, etc.) to the building site and all processes needed for the
construction/renovation of the building.
− Building use stage (Module B): The boundary of this stage comprises the period during
which the building is used by occupants, i.e. from the end of building renovation to the
deconstruction of the building. This stage also includes the maintenance, repair and
replacement of the construction materials. It also includes the energy used by technical
systems during the building operation period (heating, lighting, domestic hot water
production, etc.).
− Building end-of-life stage (Module C): This stage covers the end-of-life of the building
from its demolition to the materials elimination. It includes the processes for building
decommissioning and waste transport and management (recycled, reused, incinerated
or dumped in a landfill).
It should be kept in mind that Figure 7 presents the different stages of the complete life cycle of
a building, in which each stage may use energy and materials and release air, water and soil
emissions. Furthermore, not all of the elementary stages contribute to the same extent to the life
cycle impacts of a building (new or renovated). Negligible impacts should be excluded from the
assessment and calculations, even more if the information is difficult to access.
Life cycle stages assessed in this project:
In order to facilitate the application of LCA in this project, the methodology used to assess the
effects of energy related renovation measures is pragmatic and takes into account only the
relevant stages. There are several stages that should be definitely taken into account in the
LCA of energy related building renovation. They are represented as green boxes in Figure 7:
− Material production for new materials and for periodic replacement during the
reference study period (Modules A1-A3 according to EN 15978), i.e. all stages
required for the materials used (construction elements or BITS) for energy related
renovation measures. It includes the extraction of raw materials, transport and
transformation required to have the components ready to be used. These stages
correspond to the production of materials.
12
− Materials transportation between the production site and the building site (Module
A4 according to EN 15978). To calculate the corresponding impacts, it is necessary to
know the transportation distance(s) and the mean(s) of transport used for each material
or component. The corresponding data can be either based on known information or on
default values based on realistic hypotheses. These data should be reported and
documented (type of transport, distance). During this stage, some materials may be lost
(damage, broken) and have to be replaced (new production). These losses can be
neglected.
− Operational energy used during building operation for the reference study period
(Module B6 according to EN 15978).
− End of life of the building (modules C2-C4) with:
o Transportation of wasted materials (added during the reference study period for
energy related renovation measures) at the end of the building's life. This
corresponds to the transport from the building site to the waste management site.
To calculate the corresponding impacts, it is necessary to know the transport
distance(s) and the mean(s) of transport used for each material. The
corresponding data can be either based on known information or on default
values based on realistic hypotheses. These data should be reported and
documented (type of transport, distance).
o Waste management of removed materials (removed energy related renovation
measures during the reference study period) with waste processing (Module C3)
and final disposal (module C4).
Life cycle stages not considered in this project:
On the opposite, the following stages can be neglected (red boxes in Figure 7) due to their
assumed marginal contribution:
− Maintenance: The maintenance stage includes the processes for maintaining the
functional, technical and aesthetic performance of the building fabric and building
integrated technical systems (BITS), such as painting work, replacement of filters
(ventilation), etc. This stage does not take into account the replacement of a building
component that must be changed because it has reached the end of its service life. The
replacement impacts are included in the replacement stage (green boxes in Figure 7).
As the life cycle impacts from the maintenance stage of energy related renovation
measures is insignificant (compared to the total building’s LC impact), this stage can be
neglected, in contrary to the cost assessment, for which the maintenance must be taken
into account.
− Repair: Repair of a building element cannot be easily analysed because by definition it
happens randomly and there is no reliable information that could help to assess
13
precisely its contribution. In addition, this contribution happens seldom and therefore, it
can be neglected.
− Building construction-installation process (module A5 in Figure 7) and
deconstruction (module C1 in Figure 7): These stages take place on the building's
construction site. It should be reminded that the construction equipment will be used not
only for one building. Therefore, their contribution per building is highly reduced and
these stages can be omitted. In addition, energy used on-site during building
construction and demolition can be neglected compared to the energy embodied in the
construction materials or the energy used during building operation.
In this project, these three previous stages are not mandatory, but if they are included in the
calculation, it should be justified.
2.5.3. Physical system boundary
The physical system boundary defines the materials and energy fluxes which must be taken into
account for the LCA. Figure 8 shows a synthetic building model which includes construction
elements and building integrated technical systems (BITS). The construction elements consist
of one or more materials. The BITS consist of components (boilers, pumps, etc.) which are
made of materials. In addition, these components use one or more energy vectors.
In order to perform a LCA of a renovated building, the following aspects should be considered:
Construction elements: the LCA includes the materials of the building elements that are
affected by the energy related renovation measures. Each element (roof, facade, etc.) is made
of one or more layers and each layer corresponds to a material.
Building-integrated technical systems (BITS): the LCA includes the installed technical
equipment to support the operation of a building (as defined for instance in EN 15978). BITS
usually comprise different systems, such as heating and ventilation. The LCA also includes the
on-site energy production (solar collectors, PV, heat pump). Each system consists of
components (boiler, pump, etc.) and each component is composed of materials and may
consume energy.
14
Figure 8 Structure of the building model
In order to calculate the corresponding impacts, the following contributions have to be included
in the LCA:
Materials and BITS: Materials added or replaced for energy related renovation measures for
building elements (envelope) and for BITS-components (for more details see Appendix 7.1).
The stages corresponding to manufacturing, replacement and waste disposal of these
components must be included in the calculation.
Operational energy: Energy used by BITS during building operation. This includes the energy
used by the BITS to deliver the expected energy services (heating, cooling, DHW production,
etc.) during building operation.
Figure 9 shows an illustration of the different aspects to take into account in the LCA of a
renovated building.
Layer 1(material)
Building
Element 1
Layer 2(material)
Layer J(material)
Building integarated technical systems(BITS)
Layer 1(material)
Layer K(material)
Construction elements
Element N System 1 System M
Energy x
Component 1
Matierial 1
Component S Component 1
Matierial 2
Matierial T
Energy 1 Matierial 1 Energy 1
Matierial 2
Matierial 1
... ...
...... ...
...
...
15
Figure 9 Aspects to be included in the LCA of renovated buildings: materials for the building enveloppe
and for the BITS and the operational energy use
2.6. Calculation rules for the materials used for the envelope and
BITS including the replacement
To summarize, the system boundary to perform an LCA of a renovated building should include
the following elements:
− The materials added for energy related renovation measures of the thermal envelope of
the building;
− The materials added for energy related renovation measures for the building integrated
technical systems (BITS), including on-site energy generation units15 (PV, solar thermal,
etc.);
− The materials added to provide the same building function before and after renovation.
Figure 9 shows the materials related impacts to take into account in the LCA. Besides the initial
impact (e.g., in terms of primary energy or carbon emissions), building materials need to be
15 According to the allocation rules introduced in the previous chapter
Energy used by the technical building systems after renovationDuring the reference period of the study
Materials added and replaced during the reference period of the study for energy related renovation measures of
the building thermal envelope
Materials added and replaced during the reference period of the study for energy related renovation measures of
the building integrated technical systems
HeatingDomestic hot water
Air conditioning (cooling, (de)humdifier)
VentilationLighting
Auxiliary (pumps, control, …)
Common appliances (lifts, escalators, etc.)
Home appliances(Oven, refrigerator, computers, TV, …)
Materials for energy production and distribution(Boiler, PV panels, bore-hole, pipes, radiators, …)
Materials for the building thermal envelope(windows, thermal insulation, …)
Materials replaced to provide the same function(balcony, cladding, …)
Mandatory in Annex 56
Optional in Annex 56(documented)
not considered in Annex 56
16
replaced during the reference study period of the building. The next sub-sections present the
service lives and replacement calculation rules considered.
The service life is defined as the time during which a building component (construction material,
BITS component (boiler, etc.)) fulfils its function. At the end of its service life, the product must
be replaced. The service life of the building components included in the LCA calculation
(construction materials & building integrated technical systems) must be reported and
documented, as it has a direct effect on the results.
Service life of constituent parts of buildings
In a construction element, not all layers (materials) are replaced at the same time and some are
never replaced. This is for instance the case for the bearing structure that will probably never be
replaced during the life cycle of the building. As shown in Figure 10, the construction element
can be divided in different parts.
ConcreteInsulationRoughcast
StructureExternal
layersInternal layers
Figure 10 Example of a construction element with a bearing layer (structure) and non-bearing materials
It is not realistic to use a constant service life time for a particular type of material. For instance,
the same insulation material does not have the same service life when placed in a roof or in an
external wall. For a specific material, its service life will depend on its physical properties (water
resistance, moisture sensitivity, etc.) and its context of use (exposed to the outside, the soil,
etc.). In order to define the service life of materials, it is therefore important to take into account
the following parameters:
− Type of construction element (wall, floor, roof, etc…);
− Location of the construction element (against ground, exterior, interior);
− Position of material layer within the construction element.
Different sources of information can be used to define the service life of building constituents:
Official documents such as ISO 15686 and followings (“ISO 15686 Buildings and constructed
assets -- Service life planning,” 2012) or national documents. Appendix 7.2 also gives
17
guidelines regarding the service life of internal, external as well as structure layers of
construction elements.
Here are some examples that need to be correctly analysed to perform a consistent LCA:
− Some heavy layers which are not part of the bearing structure might be replaced during
the life cycle of the building. In the case of a wall with concrete and terracotta bricks on
either side of the insulation, the bricks could be replaced during a massive renovation. A
floor screed could also be replaced in such a situation. In both cases, the bearing
structure is not replaced.
− The insulation between two concrete layers will have the same service life as the two
concrete layers, which may probably not be replaced during the building life cycle.
− A construction element might have been designed to allow for the possibility to easily
replace some internal parts. In this case, only the replaced material is taken into account
in the calculation.
Number of replacements
Due to a limited service life, construction materials will usually be replaced once or several
times during the study period. These additional replacements have to be included in the LCA.
For the calculation of the number of replacements the following statements need to be taken
into account:
− The number of replacements for construction materials and components of a building
integrated technical system (BITS) depends on their estimated service life (ESL) and the
reference study period for the building.
− No replacement is required when the service life of the building element meets or
exceeds the reference study period (foundations, bearing wall, etc.).
− In practice, only a whole number of replacements (no partial replacements) is allowed to
calculate the contribution of the replacement stage. In the case of a partial number of
replacements resulting from the estimated service life of the component and the
reference study period of the building, the value obtained is rounded upward.
(
)
NR Number of replacements of the element
Round Function that rounds to the nearest integer value
SP Study period of the building
SL Service life of the element (material or building technical system)
18
2.7. Distinction between embodied and operational primary energy
and carbon emissions
In the following sections of this report, the terms “embodied primary non-renewable (or total)
energy” or “embodied carbon emissions” will refer to the total primary energy or the carbon
emissions due to the life cycle of construction materials added during the renovation for the
building enveloppe and BITS. Such terms are used in order to differentiate the primary energy
consumption (or the carbon emissions) of the production, transport, replacement and end-of-life
of materials/BITS from the operational energy use (heating, DHW, cooling, lighting, auxiliaries
and appliances...) as illustrated below with an adaptation of Figure 7.
Figure 11 Distinction between embodied primary energy consumption and operational primary energy
consumption according to the building life cycle stages (adapted from EN 15978 standard)
19
As a result, the LCA for a building renovation, taking into account the embodied primary energy
for the materials and BITS and the operational primary energy use is then calculated as follows:
With
the primary energy of the building renovation
the primary energy calculated for the operational energy use (module
B6), see chapter 2.8 for the detailed calculation rules
the primary energy of the BITS, including the on-site RES systems calculated for
the modules A1-A3, A4, B4, C2-C4 according to EN 15978 standard
the primary energy of all materials added during the renovation calculated for
the modules A1-A3, A4, B4, C2-C4 according to EN 15978 standard and the rules
defined in chapter 2.6
The same equation also applies for the carbon emissions calculations.
2.8. Calculation rules for the operational energy use
This section presents the energy services included in the LCA, the rules for calculating the
operational energy balance and the associated primary energy and carbon emissions especially
for electricity and on-site renewable energy generation systrems.
2.8.1. Energy services included
Energy use of building operation comprises energy use for several energy services which can
be separated into occupant-related energy use and building-related energy use, as shown in
Figure 12. Occupant-related means that the occupants decide on buying and installing the
energy consuming device. Building related means that the building owner decides on installing it
and that the device is used by all building occupants.
In many countries the "white appliances" like stove, refrigerator, sometimes freezer, washing
machine, tumbler or dryer are built in appliances and therefore building related. But there are
countries where the tenants rent an apartment without the "white appliances", which they buy
and install by themselves. Calculation of heating energy needs require assuming at least a
default energy use by appliances to account for internal heat sources. Even if the accurate
assessment of these appliances is not mandatory in the methodology, it seems adequate to
include them in the assessment by using default values, to account for their increasing share on
remaining energy use of buildings.
The LCA for the operational energy use comprises the following mandatory energy services:
20
− Heating;
− Domestic hot water (DHW);
− Air conditioning (cooling & (de)humidifying);
− Ventilation;
− Lighting;
− Auxiliary (pumps, control devices, etc.);
− Integration of energy use from common appliances and home appliances e.g., the white
appliances remain optional, it can be included but has to be reported and documented in
a transparent way.
Figure 12 System boundary for the LCA of the operational energy use
On-site renewable energy allocation to energy uses:
In the LCA methodology, we follow the EN 15978 standard’s approach. The on-site renewable
produced energy is first allocated to the building related energy use (heating, domestic hot
water, air conditioning, ventilation, lighting, auxiliary and common appliances such as lifts). The
surplus of on-site energy production (if any) is then allocated to the non-building related energy
use (e.g., home appliances). The embodied energy and embodied carbon accounting on-site
renewable energy systems is taken into account and detailed in section 2.8.3.
- Heating- Domestic hot water- Air conditioning (cooling, (de)humidifier)
- Ventilation- Lighting- Auxiliary (pumps, control, …)
Home appliances(oven, refrigerator, computers, TV, …)
Buildingrelated
energy use
Occupantsrelated
energy use
Op
era
tio
na
l e
ne
rgy
de
ma
nd
Annex 56mandatory
Annex 56optional
(documented)
User comfortUser comfort
Common appliances (lifts, escalators, etc.)
Annex 56not considered
optional (if available)
21
2.8.2. Time step for the calculation of the energy balance of building renovation
scenarios with on-site renewable energy generation
This sub-chapter deals with the calculation rules for energy related building renovation using on-
site renewable energy generation (e.g., PV, wind mills, ground or air source type heat pumps
etc.). The energy balance as shown in Figure 13 includes the building’s energy demand (load),
the delivered energy from the grid (imported energy), the on-site generation and the exported
energy from on-site generated renewable energy to the grid. In this figure, energy demand and
supply have to be weighted by LCA-based primary energy factors to have the primary energy
level as a common reference system for impact analyses and evaluations. Accordingly, the
energy related carbon emissions are weighted by carbon emission factors to express
greenhouse gas emissions from energy deliveries, exports and on-site production as CO2
equivalent emissions.
Figure 13 Terminology for building related energy use and renewable energy generation (Sartori I. et al.
2012)
In today’s practice, the operational energy consumption can be estimated according to either an
annual, monthly or an hourly balance using different steady state or dynamic energy calculation
methods. Current studies (e.g., Voss et al, 2010 and more recently Fouquet et al, 2014) show
that depending on the time step used for the calculation of the energy consumption and the on-
site renewable energy generation (hourly, monthly or annual), the self-consumption can pretty
much vary as well as the import/export balance of energy (noted as delivered and exported
energy in Figure 13).
22
For an annual balance, it is possible to reach virtually 100% self-consumption by ensuring that
the amount of on-site renewable energy generation matches the amount of building's energy
consumption. This case typically applies for the electricity consumption of new or renovated
buildings equipped with PV systems.
However, to assess the environmental impacts of such nearly zero energy building (NZEB)
renovation, it is also possible to use a more precise time step (e.g., an hourly or monthly time
step) for the calculations of the energy balance. Such approaches allow taking into account the
daily and monthly variation of both building energy consumption and on-site renewable energy
production. Figure 14 illustrates the issue by presenting an example of a PV generation and
consumption profile for one day of the year.
Three different areas are found in this figure:
- The excess PV production fed back to the grid is represented by an orange area noted
“A”;
- The building loads that need to be covered by the grid are represented with the blue
area noted “B”;
- The building load self-covered by the on-site PV generation is represented by the grey-
brown area noted “C”;
Figure 14 Comparison of a daily building energy generation and consumption profile adapted from the
IEA Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme (PVPS) (Masson et al, 2016) ;
From Figure 14, two ratios can be defined to determine the self-consumption and the self-
sufficiency of a building using the surface area figures (i.e. A, B, C):
A
C B
B
Exported to the grid
Imported from the Self-consumed
Po
wer
[Wa
tt]
23
These two terms should not be confused. The self-consumption ratio represents the share of
the on-site energy generation matching the building’s energy loads divided by the total
building’s on-site energy generation16. Findings from IEA-SHC Task 40 and IEA-EBC Annex 52
projects showed that the load match index (equivalent to the self-consumption index) in e.g., net
zero energy building varies from 35% in an hourly energy calculation up to 100% for an annual
balance (Voss et al, 2010). In opposite, the self-sufficiency ratio represents the share of the on-
site energy generation (e.g., PV) matching the building’s energy loads divided by the total
building energy loads. As stated by Sornes et al (2014), the self-consumption and self-
sufficiency ratio should normally be calculated for a hourly time step.
Choice for the LCA methodology of energy-related building renovation in this project:
While an hourly approach is probably the most accurate according to the findings of the IEA-
SHC Task 40 and IEA-EBC Annex 52 projects, the current energy codes or regulations do not
require it as a compulsory approach. In this project, the calculation rules for the LCA are thus
based on the energy needs calculated with a steady state approach, determining yearly energy
demand since some building energy codes and labels only calculate the energy consumption
and on-site generation on an annual balance.
2.8.3. Allocation rules for on-site renewable energy generation systems
Different allocation rules can be applied in LCA. A renovated nearly zero energy building
equipped with on-site renewable energy systems (e.g., PV) becomes a multifunctional system
as the building becomes an energy producing unit. According to ISO 14044, two approaches
can be used to deal with this issue: the co-product allocation and the avoided burden approach
(extension of system boundaries):
− For the co-product allocation, exported electricity is considered as a “co-product” of the
building system. The embodied primary energy and embodied carbon emissions of the
on-site energy generation systems are allocated to the building according to the self-
consumed17 on-site renewable energy and added to the primary energy use and the
carbon emissions of electricity imported from the grid.
16 It is important to highlight that other definitions for defining the self-consumption and the self-production aspects may be found in the
literature.
17 A similar approach as proposed in the EN 15978 standard (2011) for building LCA is to allocate 100% of the embodied energy of on-site energy generation BITS to the building whatever is the self-consumption value.
24
Using the terms introduced in Figure 14 in the case of a PV system, the primary energy
(PE)18 of a renovated building is calculated as follows:
With
the primary energy of the imported electricity from the grid
the primary energy of the on-site RES system
the primary energy of the other operational energy use not covered by
the on-site RES and covered by other systems
the primary energy of the other BITS, excluding the on-site RES system
− The second allocation method is the avoided burden approach. It considers the export of
the building’s on-site renewable energy (electric, thermal) as an energy which does not
need to be produced for the grid, leading to “credits” for the building which depend on
the quantity avoided. In that case, 100% of the embodied primary energy and embodied
carbon emissions related to the on-site RES systems are taken into account in the
building-LCA. Embodied energy (and related carbon emissions) is added to the
difference between the imported (delivered) electricity from the grid and the export of on-
site generated RES electricity multiplied by the primary energy (or carbon emissions)
factor of the electricity grid.
Using terms introduced in Figure 14 in a case of a PV system, the primary energy (PE)19
of a renovated building is calculated as follows:
With
amount of imported electricity from the grid
18 It can be either the total primary energy (TPE) or the non renewable primary energy (NRPE)
19 It can be either the total primary energy (TPE) or the non renewable primary energy (NRPE)
25
amount of exported PV electricity to the grid
the primary energy factor of the electricity grid mix
In addition to the two ISO 14040 allocation methods, the EN 15978 standard for building LCA
also introduces its own method:
− The EN 15978 allocation method considers that 100% of the on-site RES embodied
energy and embodied carbon emissions are allocated to the building even if a part of the
on-site energy production is exported to the grid (e.g., in the case of a building where the
on-site energy production excess the total building energy consumption).
In that case the equation simply becomes:
The same three equations also apply for the carbon emissions calculations.
Choice of the allocation method for on-site RES in this project:
A first study has been conducted in 2014 by Fouquet et al (2014) regarding this topic. The
authors showed the influence of the allocation rules for the on-site renewable energy system on
comparative LCA comparing alternatives with and without PV systems for a single-family house
in the French context. The results do not show any differences in the ranking of the alternatives
“single-family without PV” and “single-family house with PV” between using the avoided burden
allocation and the co-product allocation.
As a result, in this project, the LCA methodology let open the allocation rules (i.e., either the
avoided burden approach, the co-product allocation or the EN 15978 standard20 can be
considered). The choice should however be motivated by the goal and scope of the study21 and
the same allocation method shall be used when comparing different cost-effective renovation
measures for a same building case study.
In addition, on-site generated electricity fully sold to an off-site owner of the generation unit is
not accounted for in the building LCA (since electricity generated is allocated to the (external)
owner of the system, using the building only as a carrier for his generating system).
20 As the study of Fouquet, Lebert, Lasvaux et al (2014) does not show any comparative bias in comparing solutions with and with out
on-site renewable electricity generation
21 A sensitivity check will however be performed in the Annex 56 case studies results with on -site renewable energy systems to ensure the choice of the allocation rules for e.g., PV systems does not bias the comparative LCA results.
26
2.8.4. Primary energy and carbon emissions factors for the electricity mix
When the self-consumption of on-site energy systems is below 100%, a renovated building with
on-site renewable electricity generation systems also need some imports of electricity from the
grid to meet its electricity needs.
As mentioned by Sartori et al (2012), while it is already common praxis to have seasonal or
hourly fluctuating energy prices, for primary energy use and carbon emissions factors, this is not
common praxis today but it may become more common in the future.
Carbon emissions and primary energy factors of the electricity mix vary depending on the day,
the month and the season. It varies due to the import/export of electricity between a country and
the neighbouring countries and due to the running or not of the different energy generation
capacities during the year. Electricity grid managers at national level sometimes already started
providing the hourly production mix of the electricity allowing the estimation of hourly primary
energy and carbon emissions factors of the electricity e.g., in the US22, in Spain23 or in
France24. For example, Figure 15 presents an illustration of the greenhouse gases emissions
(expressed in kg eq.-CO2) for the French context in 2012. While the annual average of the
greenhouse gases emissions of the electricity is 0.095 kg eq-CO2/kWh, it actually varies from
0.04 to 0.22 kg eq-CO2/kWh depending on the month (x-axis) and the time of the day (y-axis).
Figure 15 Illustration of the hourly CO2 emissions of the electricity mix in France for the year 2012; the x-
axis represents the different months (from January to December) and the y-axis represents
the hours of each day (from 0 to 24; figure taken from Fouquet (2016)
22 En.openei.org/datasets/dataset/hourly-energy-emission-factors-for-electrictiy-generation-in-the-united-states
23 www.ree.es/en/activities/realtime-demand-and-generation
24 Clients.rete-france.com/lang/fr/visiteurs/vie/bilan_RTE.jsp
27
In that context, for near zero energy renovation with on-site renewable energy systems, the
hourly energy demand for end-uses like heating, ventilation, lighting and auxiliaries and for the
appliances could be matched with the hourly kg eq-CO2 values of the energy grid (e.g., for
electricity) to calculate the LCA of the operational energy consumption and on-site production.
By doing so, it would be possible more precisely determine the LCA of building with on-site
energy production systems.
Choice of the calculation type for the primary energy and carbon emissions factors for
energy carriers in this project:
As the more accurate approach (i.e. hourly primary energy and carbon emissions factors for
electricity) has been to date only briefly discussed and not all the countries have publicly
available data on that topic, the LCA methodology in this project remains pragmatic and only
applies the annual average primary energy and carbon emissions factors for the (usually
national) electricity consumption mix. Similarly, the primary energy and carbon emissions
factors of other energy carriers are also based on an annual average. Section 3.2 page 30
presents the average annual factors considered in the six European case studies of this project.
2.9. Reference study period of the renovated building
LCA (and LCC) are carried out on the basis of a chosen reference study period, for which all
contributions of materials and energy consumed are calculated. Therefore, the reference period
has an important and direct influence on the results.
For new buildings, the reference study period is usually defined as the estimated service life of
the building. For renovated buildings, the reference study period can be:
− The period between the current renovation and the next one. A typical value is 30 years,
which corresponds to the period between the building construction and the first important
renovation, which could be motivated by energetic purposes.
− The period between the current renovation and the end of building's life. A typical value
is 60 years.
It should be noticed, that the number of energy related renovations during the building's life is
limited. The more the building achieves low energy consumption after renovation, the less a
major energy related renovation will be undertaken in the future. It is impossible to know, which
materials will be used to replace the energy related construction material in the future. It is also
impossible to know which future energy vectors will be used when the boiler will be replaced (in
about 30 year).
One recent example is related to electrical heating. Thirty years ago it was subsidised or at least
promoted by local authorities in several countries. But now, due to political reasons after the
28
nuclear power plant accident in Fukushima, some governments are willing to promote the
substitution of electrical heating. The same uncertainty occurs for the replacement of
construction materials that will take place in several decades.
The reference study period should be equal or longer than the service life of the energy related
building components analysed in order to avoid any misinterpretation of the results. Therefore, it
is suggested to use a reference study period of 60 years. If another reference study period is
used, it should be reported and documented.
29
3. Implementation of the LCA methodology in building renovation case studies
Chapter 3 presents how the LCA methodology was implemented in the building renovation case
studies. First, an inter-comparison case study exerice is presented in order to validate the
different tools that used the LCA methodology presented in chapter 2. Second, the primary
energy and carbon emissions LCA-based conversion factors used in each case study (and
country) involved in the project are presented. The third sub-section presents the used
templates for reporting the LCA (and LCC) results of the case studies. Finally, the last sub-
section gives an overview of the case studies and their renovation packages.
3.1. Inter-comparison of LCA tools on a simple case study
Each partner implemented the methodology defined in chapter 2 either by using spreadsheets,
existing European LCA tools like the Swiss Eco-Bat or by developing new tools e.g., the ASCOT
tool developed for Denmark. In order to ensure a consistent implementation of the LCA
methodology in the six detailed case studies, an inter-comparison of LCA tools and
spreadsheets used by the different partners was conducted on a simple case study. The goal of
this preliminary exercice was to check that each partner is able to get to the same results using
the same LCA data for the calculations. The “Appendix 2: inter-comparison exercise for building
LCA tools” provides the detailed description of this simple case study while the comparative
results.
Figure 16 Inter-comparison results for primary energy between Austria, Czech Republic, Portugal,
Denmark and the reference
30
Figure 17 Inter-comparison results for carbon emissions between Austria, Czech Republic, Portugal,
Denmark and the reference
It was found that using the same data, all partners were able to get to very similar results. The
relative deviation found was about -0.1% to +1.9% for the case study before renovation and -
5.8% to +12.2% for the case study after renovation. In any cases, the building after renovation
performed better than before renovation. The remaining sources of deviations among the
countries can be explained by the different level of expertises of the partners, that are not
specifically experts in LCA. After a detailed analysis of LCA results provided by the participating
countries, the relative deviations were decreased to less than 5%. In that context, it is assumed
that the LCA methodology can be used with confidence enough by all project partners.
3.2. Primary energy and carbon emission conversion factors of
the project’s case studies
Tables 3 and 4 show an overview of the different conversion factors used in each case study for
the LCA calculations. Table 3 presents the conversion factors to calculate the kgCO2-eq
emissions based on the final energy use of the building while Table 4 presents the conversion
factors to calculate the total Primary Energy, also based on the final energy demand of the
building.
31
Table 3: Carbon emissions conversion factors in kgCO2-eq/kWhfinal
Country Austria25 Czech
Republic28
Denmark26 Portugal27 Spain
28 Sweden
Oil 0.302 - 0.331 - 0.294 0.29528
Natural gas 0.252 0.238 0.251 0.262 0.237 0.23828
Wood / biomass 0.052 - - 0.045 0.012 -
District heating 0.050 0.087 0.202 - 0.114 0.08029
Electricity 0.322 0.924 0.413 0.691 0.594 0.10028
Table 4: Total Primary Energy conversion factors kWhprim/kWhfinal
Country Austria25
Czech
Republic28
Denmark30 Portugal
27 Spain
28 Sweden
Oil 1.13 - 1.28 - 1.20 1.2128
Natural gas 1.20 1.13 1.19 1.24 1.10 1.1328
Wood / biomass 1.19 - - 1.34 1.14 -
District heating 1.60 1.56 0.69 - 1.64 0.3029
Electricity 1.83 3.73 1.78 3.22 3.40 2.9628
Each partners then used each own LCA data compiling the embodied total primary energy,
embodied non-renewable energy and embodied carbon emissions. Very often, LCA data come
from the same LCA database as the primary energy and carbon emissios factors for the energy
carriers (e.g., GEMIS 4.8, Ecoinvent v2.2. database, DGNB-DK LCA database or the Swiss
KBOB LCA recommendations list based on Ecoinvent v2.2).
25 Reference: GEMIS 4.8
26 Reference: Danish Energy Agency - 2015
27 Reference: Ecoinvent v2.2
28 Reference: Eco-bat 4.0
29 Reference: Göteborg Energi 2013
30 Reference: DGNB - DGNB-DK
32
3.3. Templates for reporting LCA results of case studies
In this project, different templates were proposed in a view of reporting the LCA but also the
LCC results of each case study. The first one is described and presented in the case studies
report from Venus et al (2015) while the second is presented below31.
The template named as an Integrated Performance View (IPV) is a document that summarizes
the building renovation hypotheses and LCA and LCC results in a more reduced view as the
case study template of Venus et al (2015).
Figure 18 presents an extract of the two parts of the template which comprises:
1) The first part gives the general characteristics of the building before and after renovation:
location; construction and renovation years, building type, energy reference area before and
after renovation, heating degree days, description of construction elements, their U-values, and
technical systems.
2) The second part gives the energy, LCA and LCC performances of the building before and
after renovation with:
− The energy demand of the building for the heating, domestic hot water, lighting and
ventilation;
− The LCC results: annualized costs associated to the operational energy consumption
and the investment costs according to the Annex 56 methodology (Ott et al (2015). The
template presents the costs expressed in Euros per square meter of construction
element and in annualized costs.
− The LCA results are also presented according to the LCA methodology for the three
indicators: TPE, NRPE and carbon emissions.
31 The second template described in this report does not allow to compare different renovation scenarios. It rather aims at pres enting the
final LCA and LCC results of a building renovation compared to the reference case.
33
Figure 18 Example of the Integrated Performance View (IPV) of a renovated building comparing the
building’s LCA and LCC results before and after renovation
In Appendix 3: Integrated Performance View (IPV) template, an example of this template filled
for a Swiss case study of a building renovation is presented. This tempate for reporting LCA
results together with LCC results can now be used on further building renovation case studies
by the interested practitioner.
Gross floor area (before/after): [m2]
Forme factor (after): [-]
Heating / cooling degree day: [°d]
More information:
CommentsThe last attic floor was added in the 80th. On South and East facades were balconies.
CommentsThe facade's renovation is made of a prefabricated elements (Gap so lution) placed in front o f the
balconies. Thus there is no more thermal bridge and the to tal gross heated floor area increases of
14%.
Total 156 Total 30,3
(Common appl.) Lift + laundry 1,9 (Common appl.) Lift + laundry 2,3
Ventilation Air extraction system 0,4 Ventilation Mechanical ventilation heat recovery MVHR 1,7
Lighting Fluocompact 0,7 Lighting LED 0,4
Auxiliaries Distribution pumps 1,8 Auxiliaries Distribution pumps 2,3
Cooling - - Cooling - -
DHW Gas boiler 27,2 DHW Gas boiler 110 kW + CHP 12 kWth and 5 kWel 14,4
Heating Gas boiler 124 Heating Gas boiler 110 kW + CHP 12 kWth and 5 kWel 9,2
BITS DescriptionFinal energy
[kWk/(m2 y)]BITS Description
Final energy
[kWh/(m2 y)]
Floor Plaster 50 mm + Mineral wool 20mm + Concret 1,11 Floor Plaster 50 mm + Mineral wool 20mm + Concret 1,11
Glazing/Frame Double glazing / wood frame 2.9 / 1.3 Glazing/Frame Triple glazing / PVC frame 0.70 / 0.72
Facade Concret + Plaster 1,2 Facade Concret 200 mm + Mineral wool 180 mm + GAP module 0,17
Roof Unheated attic 3,5 Roof Mineral wool 160 mm / Mineral wool 300 mm 0.21/ 0.13
Before renovation After renovation
Construction
elementsDescription (energy related)
U-value
[W/(m2 K)]
Construction
elementsDescription (energy related)
U-value
[W/(m2 K)]
Building type: Multifamiliy house 2392/0
Building structure: Reinforced concrete SFOE report
Les CharpentiersLocation: Morges, Switzerland 4'280 / 4'836
Construction/Renovation: 1965 / 2010 0,71
Avant rénovation Après rénovation
LCCA methodology: Annex 56 (IEA) Annual interest rate: 3% LCIA methodology: Annex 56 (IEA)
Reference study period: 60 years Increase energy rate: 0% Reference study period: 60 years
Main data source(s): Construction companies (LCCA) Main data source(s): Ecoinvent v2.2 (LCIA)
Life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
Ref. Renov. Ref. Renov. Ref. Renov. Ref. Renov. Ref. Renov.
8,37 0,09 0,42 0,43
8,65 0,14 0,65 0,68
0,00 - - -
0,00 - - -
4,16 - - -
3,07 0,27 1,21 1,29
2,07 - - -
Roof 1099 m2 2,80 Roof 1099 m2 0,35 1,3 1,4
Facade 1235 m2 5,70 Facade 1235 m2 0,39 1,8 3,5
Win. 699 m2 5,37 Win. 699 m2 0,96 4,3 4,5
Floor 169 m2 0,89 Floor 169 m2 0,10 0,4 0,9
12,94 0,96 124 9 29,4 2,2 138,3 10,3 138,8 10,3
2,83 1,50 27 14 6,5 3,4 30,3 16,1 30,4 16,1
- - - - - - - - - -
0,80 1,20 4,7 6,6 0,7 1,0 12,4 17,4 14,3 20,2
16,57 44,74 Total 156 30 37 9 181 54 184 59 Total 852
BIT
S
Common appl.
Enve
lop
eEn
erg
y
con
sum
pti
on
Electricity (misc.)
Enve
lop
eEn
erg
y
con
sum
pti
on
Cooling
DHW
344 €/m2-element 12,02
Heating
DHW
Cooling
Electricity (misc.)
BIT
S
Heating
DHW
Cooling
Auxiliaries
Lighting
Ventilation
Common appl.
Material / Energy consumption
Final energy GWP PENRE PETotal
[kWh/(m2 y)] [kg-eq CO2/(m2 y)] [kWh/(m2 y)] [kWh/(m2 y)]
Heating
€/m2-element 120,54
960 €/m2-element 138,76
148 598 € 30,73
344 €/m2-element 78,18
472
Lighting 448 816 € 92,81
Ventilation 220 674 € 45,63
Cooling € 0,00
Auxiliaries € 0,00
DHW 820 023 € 169,57
Heating 793 372 € 164,06
Investment cost Annual cost
[€/m2-GFA] [€/m2-GFA/y]Component / Energy consumption Investment cost
Save
d =
12
5.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Ref. Renov.
Final energy [kWh/(m2 y)]
Save
d =
27
.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Ref. Renov.
GWP[kg-eq CO2/(m2 y)]
Save
d =
12
7.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Ref. Renov.
PENRE[kWh/(m2 y)]
Save
d =
12
4.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Ref. Renov.
PETotal[kWh/(m2 y)]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Investment cost [€/m2 GFA]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Ref. Renov.
Annual cost[€/m2 GFA/y]
34
3.4. Overview of case studies
Table 5 shows an overview of the six building renovation case studies used for testing the LCA
methodology. They are located in Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Spain and
Sweden. The evaluated buildings are mainly residential buildings with the exception of the
elementary school in Brno, Czech Republic.
The oldest of these buildings dates from 1953, the youngest was constructed in 1987. The
gross heated floor area of the buildings varies between 123 m² and more than 9900 m². These
building characteristics, together with the country-specific influencing factors, ensure a quite
broad overview and application of the LCA methodology for the investigation of the cost-
effective renovation based on both LCA and LCC methodologies.
All six case studies have been renovated in the past years. This means that the performed
calculations serve mainly as comparisons between the actual renovation carried out and other
renovation packages, which would also have been possible to apply. In this case the
investigations do not support the real planning of the building renovations.
The following Table 5 shows the main characteristics of the case studies before and after the
renovation. More information on the case studies can be obtained from the case studies report
(Venus et al, 2015).
Table 5: Overview of case studies used for the LCA
Country Before After Site Building
type
Year(s) of
construction
Year(s) of
renovation GHFA32
Austria
Johann-
Böhmstraße,
Kapfenberg
Multi-family
building 1960 – 1961 2012 – 2014 2845 m²
Czech
Republic
Kamínky 5,
Brno
Elementary
School 1987 2009 – 2010 9909 m²
Denmark
Traneparken,
Hvalsø
Multi-family
Building 1969 2011-2012 5293 m³
32 Gross Heated Floor Area (GHFA) after the renovation of the building
35
Country Before After Site Building
type
Year(s) of
construction
Year(s) of
renovation GHFA32
Portugal
Neighborhood
RDL, Porto
Two-family
Building 1953 2012 123 m²
Spain
Lourdes
Neighborhood,
Tudela
Multi-family
Building 1970 2011 1474 m²
Sweden
Backa röd,
Gothenburg
Multi-family
Building 1971 2009 1357 m²
3.5. Investigated renovation packages and reference case
This section is taken from Venus et al (2015) and aims at giving an overview of the case studies
where the LCA methodology was applied.
For the six investigated case studies parametric studies were performed to identify the cost
effective renovations for the individual real building renovations. The parametric studies were
performed based on the developed methodology including the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)33.
For the case studies, each partner defined the characteristics of the investigated renovation
packages according to what is feasible in each country. The idea was to include different
thermal standards (insulation of building envelope) and different energy sources for heating and
domestic hot water preparation (fossil fuels and renewables) as well as different ventilation
situations (mechanical and natural) in the considerations.
Besides those renovation measures which lead to a reduction of the energy demand of the
building also a reference case was defined, which represents the starting point on the global
cost curve and which represents the basis for the comparison with the other defined renovation
packages.
The reference case should include only renovation measures which have to be carried out
anyway. Therefore this reference case can also be named as “anyway renovation”. Renovation
33 More information to the developed methodology can be found on the official IEA EBC Annex 56 website:
http://www.iea-annex56.org/
The Methodology report can be downloaded here:
http://www.iea-annex56.org/Groups/GroupItemID6/STA_methods_impacts_report.pdf
36
measures in this package can be for example the repainting of windows and of the outside walls
or a roof sealing.
In this reference case the replacement of the entire or part of the existing heating system is also
included. This replacement has an implicit influence on the energy performance by an improved
level of efficiency. The replacement of the heating system is included in the reference case due
to a more realistic depiction of the real situation.
The investigated renovation packages are named in further consequence “renovation package
v1”, “renovation package v2” and “renovation package v3”, where v3 represents the actually
renovation carried out.
On the next few pages for each country the objective of the defined renovation package v1, v2
and v3 are presented as well as also some short information about the included renovation
measures.
More detailed information about the different renovation measures of each country can be found
in the findings and conclusions of the case studies report (Venus et al, 2015).
In the following sub-sections, the reference case and the investigated renovation packages of
each country are presented in a condensed way to give a short overview of the included
renovation measures per country. The presented renovation measures are structured in
following way:
− Building envelope - measures to improve the thermal quality of the building envelope,
i.e. insulation of the façade, the roof and the floor as well as new windows
− BITS (Building Integrated Technical Systems) – measures on technical systems for
heating, domestic hot water, cooling, auxiliaries, lighting, ventilation and common
appliances
− Investigated energy sources for heating and domestic hot water production –
energy sources that were investigated in the parametric studies
− RES (renewable energy sources) – measures for the renewable energy generation on-
site, e.g. solar thermal installation, photovoltaic modules etc.
37
3.5.1. Austria
Country Before After Site Building
type
Year(s) of
construction
Year(s) of
renovation GHFA
Austria
Johann-
Böhmstraße,
Kapfenberg
Multi-
family
building
1960 – 1961 2012 – 2014 2845 m²
Renovation
package v1
The objective of renovation package v1 is to fulfill only the minimum
requirements of the Austrian OIB guideline 634
.
This minimum requirements concern the U-values of the components, the
heating energy demand and the final energy demand.
In this renovation package v1 neither mechanical ventilation nor RES on-site are
included. Renovation measures include the thermal insulation of the roof and the
façade, the mounting of new windows with an external shading system and the
renewal of the heating and domestic hot water system to a centralized supply.
Renovation
package v2
In renovation package v2 the building has the same U-values as the real
renovated building in renovation package v3.
The difference between those renovation packages is that in renovation package
v2 the U-values are achieved by a conventional composite heat insulation
system instead of a prefabricated façade system.
Additionally in renovation package v2 no mechanical ventilation system is
installed. Furthermore no solar thermal system and no photovoltaic system are
included. This means that renovation package v2 does not have active energy
production from renewable energy sources on-site.
As in renovation package v1 the renovation measures only include the thermal
insulation of the roof and the façade, new windows with external shading device
and renewal of the heating and DHW system.
Renovation
package v3
Renovation package v3 represents the actually executed renovation of the
residential building. The executed renovation of the building includes the thermal
insulation of the façade by prefabricated wood modules, the thermal insulation of
the roof, the mounting of new triple-glazed windows (with an external shading
device) which are already integrated in the prefabricated façade modules, the
installation of a new mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery, the
renewal of the heating and domestic hot water system as well as the installation
of a solar thermal system for the heating and domestic hot water preparation and
a photovoltaic system for the electricity generation on-site.
34 Austrian Institute of Construction Engineering (2015): Richtlinie 6 – Energieeinsparung und Wärmeschutz (www.oib.or.at)
38
3.5.2. Czech Republic
Country Before After Site Building
type
Year(s) of
construction
Year(s) of
renovation GHFA
Czech
Republic
Kamínky 5,
Brno
Elementary
School 1987 2009 – 2010 9909 m²
Renovation
package v1
This is an ex-post model scenario. It focuses on improving thermal properties
of the building envelope (replacement of doors and windows, additional
thermal insulation, etc.) to comply with applicable Czech standards in time of
renovation (2009/2010).
Technical equipment is replaced. DHW, heating and ventilation pipes and
ducts are replaced or restored and insulated to minimize heat losses.
External shading is installed to reduce overheating during sunny weather.
Originally there were only indoor sunblinds installed in the school. These were
prone to malfunction and due to their position they proved ineffective,
especially in summer.
Renovation
package v2
Another ex-post model scenario. It includes further improvements of the
thermal properties of school`s envelope. Technical equipment was replaced
and repaired similarly to scenario v1.
Renovation
package v3
Renovation package v3.1 represents the realized renovation measures. These
included improving the thermal properties of the school`s envelope to levels
exceeding Czech requirements on low-energy buildings.
Technical equipment was replaced and repaired similarly to scenario v1. Other
variants assess different energy sources for heating and DHW.
A photovoltaic power plant was installed on the school`s roof during the renovation. Due to the
lack of funding it was installed by a private investor who pays a rent for the necessary space.
The electricity is supplied to public grid. This “indirect” incorporation of photovoltaic is included
in all variants of scenarios v1, variants v2.1, v2.3 and v2.5 as well as in all variants of v3.
Remaining variants of scenario v2 (v2.2, v2.4 and v2.6) model “direct” incorporation of the
photovoltaic – generated electricity covers 50 % of DHW energy consumption and the rest is
used for lighting, common appliances, etc.
39
3.5.3. Denmark
Country Before After Site Building
type
Year(s) of
construction
Year(s) of
renovation GHFA
Denmark
Traneparken,
Hvalsø
Multi-
family
Building
1969 2011-2012 5293 m³
Renovation
package v1
For this scenario 200 mm insulation was further added to the roof insulation,
but the additional wall insulation was reduced to 100 mm – to simulate a
situation where it was not possible to add 211 mm to the wall.
To reach the same energy conservation level as v3, the mechanical ventilation
heat recovery (MVHR) used was given higher heat recovery efficiency – 90%
instead of 80% and a lower specific fan power factor of 1.2 instead of 1.4.
The size of the PV system was identical to the one used in v3 and the new
windows as well.
Renovation
package v2
For this scenario the basic idea was to illustrate a situation where it was not
possible or realistically cost-efficient to add insulation to the exterior wall.
To compensate for this, additional roof insulation and an improved MVHR
system like in renovation package v1 was chosen.
To further compensate for the lack of savings, a larger PV system of 132 kWp
was tested.
Renovation
package v3
This renovation package represents the actually implemented renovation and
includes following renovation measures:
211 mm additional (average) external wall insulation
250 mm additional roof insulation
New triple-glazed low-energy windows
New mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery – MVHR system
33 kWp PV system.
The heating energy supply of Traneparken is district heating, so in practical terms it is not a real
alternative to change this supply to anything else. However, for the purpose of the LCC and
LCA analyses the calculations were carried out also for a changed heating supply system, i.e.
gas and oil boilers.
The on-site generated electricity counts for the same level as energy savings, with a weighting
factor of 0.413 kgCO2-eq/kWhfinal respectively 1.78 kWhprim/kWhfinal.
40
3.5.4. Portugal
Country Before After Site Building
type
Year(s) of
construction
Year(s) of
renovation GHFA
Portugal
Neighborhood
RDL, Porto
Two-family
Building 1953 2012 123 m²
Renovation
package v1
This scenario includes intervention on the roof, the floor and walls. Windows
are not changed in renovation package v1.
In total four different energy sources for heating and domestic hot water have
been investigated:
HVAC (multi-split air conditioned for heating and cooling and solar
thermal panels backed up by electric heater for DHW)
Natural gas
Heap pump + PV
Biomass
Renovation
package v2
In this scenario, the same four combinations of BITS that were tested in
renovation package v1 have been evaluated in renovation package v2 too.
Regarding the measures on the building envelope, the best energy
performance was searched with all building elements being improved. The
insulation material is always cork boards to evaluate the impact of its lower
embodied energy.
Renovation
package v3
In this scenario, the measures that have been applied in the field have been
evaluated.
The chosen renovation scenario presents the most current renovation praxis in
Portugal, with significant limitation on the investment costs and no major
concerns with Life Cycle Costs, especially in cases such as this where the
investor is not the one who pays the future energy bills.
.
41
3.5.5. Spain
Country Before After Site Building
type
Year(s) of
construction
Year(s) of
renovation GHFA
Spain
Lourdes
Neighborhood,
Tudela
Multi-
family
Building
1970 2011 1474 m²
Renovation
package v1
The main objective of renovation package v1 is to achieve only the minimum
performance required by the Spanish regulation at the moment of this
renovation.
The envelope and windows have been improved and a new condensation gas
boiler for heating and DHW has been installed.
No additional measures have been performed to reduce other energy uses.
Renovation
package v2
The performance of the envelope has been improved much more than it is
required by regulation and much more than in a business-as-usual new
building.
An air-water pump is installed for the low heating demand needed and DHW.
Solar panels contribute to cover 50% of the DHW demand. Mechanical
ventilation is also installed.
Renovation
package v3
All the actions performed during the actual renovation are taken into account in
this scenario: improvement of the envelope and district heating renewal.
Additional measures (not performed in reality) are taking into account for the
scenario comparison: prefabrication and on-site photovoltaic system that
covers 50% of the electricity demand of the building.
Note: In none of the cases measures to improve the efficiency of lighting, domestic and
common appliances have been taken into account.
42
3.5.6. Sweden
Country Before After Site Building
type
Year(s) of
construction
Year(s) of
renovation GHFA
Sweden
Backa röd,
Gothenburg
Multi-
family
Building
1971 2009 1357 m²
Renovation
package v1
The objective of renovation package v1 is to fulfill only the minimum
requirements of the Swedish building code BBR 2012 for new construction.
These minimum requirements concern the building's energy use, that, in
normal use during a reference year, needs to be supplied to a building (often
referred to as “purchased energy”) for heating, comfort cooling, hot tap water
and the building's facility energy.
In the renovation package the U-values of the building envelope (exterior
walls, roof, floor and windows) are improved and mechanical ventilation with
heat recovery (cross flow heat exchanger) is installed. New thermostatic
radiator valves are also installed.
Renovation
package v2
In renovation package v2, the building has the same U-values as the real
renovated building in renovation package v3.
The difference between renovation package v2 and v3 is that renovation
package v2 includes no heat recovery unit on ventilation.
Renovation
package v3
Renovation package v3 represents the actually realized renovation of the
demonstration building, and is the most ambitious one.
The realized renovation of the building includes substantial improvement of the
thermal insulation of the building envelope with e.g. new triple-glazed low
energy windows with a light solar protection glazing.
A new mechanical balanced ventilation system with rotary heat exchangers
was installed.
To reduce the use of hot water individual metering was installed.
The building was already connected to district heating, based on 81 %
renewable energy, and using green electricity.
43
4. LCA results: embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions in building renovation case studies
4.1. Scope for the analysis of LCA results
The LCA methodology is only one part of the overall methodology of the project together with
the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) calculations (Ott et al, 2015). The LCA of each renovation package
was evaluated according to the total carbon emissions, the Non-Renewable Primary Energy
(NRPE) and the total Primary Energy (PE).
As the LCA methodology is applied in all the case studies’ results, it is not in the scope of this
report to present all LCA and LCC results of the case studies report (Venus et al, 2015). This
section only focuses on the analyses of the LCA results for the materials and BITS (embodied
energy and carbon emissions results). The LCA results of the operational energy consumption
(illustrated for the primary energy indicators with dotted bars in Figure 19) will be only presented
in terms of energy and carbon emissions savings due to the renovation next to the embodied
energy and carbon emissions values.
Figure 19 Schematic representation of the effect of energy related renovation measures compared to the
existing situation (building before renovation), the dotted bars represent the total primary
energy for the operational energy use before/after renovation; the plain bars represent the
embodied primary energy of the new materials and BITS added during the renovation
The results of this section answer the following questions:
44
− How much operational primary energy and carbon emissions are saved for each building
renovation compared to the embodied primary energy consumption and carbon
emissions due to the materials and BITS added and/or changed during the renovation?
− Does the integration of embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions in the
assessments change the choice of the optimal renovation concept for the carbon
emissions, primary energy (total) and primary energy (non renewable) indicators?
The choice of these simple research questions is justified by the scope of this project i.e., the
determination of cost-effective building renovation packages using a methodology integrating
both LCA and LCC. In that specific context, the influence of integrating embodied energy and
embodied carbon emissions of materials for the renovation of the envelope and for new BITS
needed to be analyzed.
Indeed, in this chapter, two hypotheses related to the influence of embodied energy and carbon
emissions are verified for all cost-effective solutions. These hypotheses are:
1. The operational savings of the energy related renovation measures assessed are higher than additional embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions in any cost-effective renovation measures.
2. The integration of embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions of the energy related renovation measures assessed does not change the cost-effective renovation packages.
4.2. Results with and without taking into account embodied
energy and embodied carbon emissions
Figures 20, 21 and 22 present the comparative results with and without embodied carbon
emissions for the different renovation packages of the case studies. For the sake of clarity,
results of all countries are presented in the same figure for each indicator.
45
Figure 20 Comparison of carbon emissions reductions and costs for the six case studies, without
including embodied carbon emissions and with embodied carbon emissions (results
represented with a black edge), for the different renovation packages
Austria Czech Republic
Denmark
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
46
Figure 21 Comparison of carbon emissions reductions and costs for the six case studies, without
including embodied non-renewable primary energy and with embodied non-renewable primary
energy (results represented with a black edge), for the different renovation packages
Austria Czech Republic
Denmark
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
47
Figure 22 Comparison of carbon emissions reductions and costs for the six case studies, without
including embodied total primary energy and with embodied total primary energy (results
represented with a black edge), for the different renovation packages
Austria Czech Republic
Denmark
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
48
Global results show that the inclusion of embodied energy and carbon emissions in the
methodology does neither change the cost-effective solutions nor the best renovation packages
in terms of total primary energy (TPE), non-renewable primary energy (NRPE) and carbon
emissions.
Indeed, the inclusion of embodied energy and carbon emissions only influences the reduction
achievable at some extent depending on the embodied energy and carbon emissions of the
measures. For countries where all renovation packages are cost-effective (i.e., Austria, Portugal
and Spain) and achieve reduction in carbon emissions, NRPE and TPE, the inclusion of
embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions slightly lower the achievable reduction. It is
respectively about 4% to 11% for Austria, 2% to 15% for Portugal and 2% to 5% for Spain
whatever the indicator (carbon emissions, NRPE, TPE). For the Czech case study, all solutions
are cost-effective except the “v1-elec” renovation package and “v3-elec” (only for the carbon
emissions indicator). For those cost-effective renovation packages, the integration of embodied
energy and carbon emissions lowers the achievable reduction about 5% to 12% whatever the
indicator (carbon emissions, NRPE, TPE).
For the Swedish case study, fewer solutions are both cost-effective and achieve reduction in
carbon emissions, NRPE and TPE. This can be explained by the already existing district heating
in the reference case that slightly biases the analysis with fossil fuel alternatives (e.g., gas or
oil). For the cost-effective renovation packages using district heating, the integration of
embodied energy lowers the achievable reduction about 15 to 32% for NRPE and 8% to 15%
for TPE while figures are about 9 to 19% for the carbon emissions.
Finally, the Danish case study presents no cost-effective renovation packages. The inclusion of
the embodied carbon emissions however reduces the achievable savings of 3% to 6% while the
inclusion of embodied NRPE and embodied TPE indicators reduces the savings from 14% to
28%.
49
4.3. Operational savings compared to embodied energy and
carbon emissions for cost-effective renovation measures
This section reports the annual operational savings compared to the additional embodied
carbon emissions and TPE for each case study. Results are presented depending on the
number of cost-effective renovation measures identified in chapter 4.2.
Figure 23 presents the results for the Austrian, Portuguese and Spanish case studies where all
solutions are cost-effective.
Results show that the operational carbon emissions savings (resp. the operational TPE savings)
are systematically higher than the additional embodied carbon emissions (resp. embodied TPE)
i.e., “we save more than we invest in terms of carbon emissions and TPE”. The additional
embodied carbon emissions and embodied TPE represents:
− 4% to 8% of the operational carbon emissions savings and 7% to 14% of the TPE
savings for the Austrian case study;
− 2% to 7% for the operational TPE savings and 8% to 20% of the carbon emissions
savings for the Portuguese case study;
− 1% to 5% of the operational carbon emissions and TPE savings for the Spanish case
study.
For the Austrian case study, the chosen renovation scenario (v3) has the highest embodied
carbon emissions and embodied TPE with respectively 8% and 14% of relative contribution
compared to the operational savings. This is mainly due to the additional renewable energy
generation on-site (144 m2 of solar thermal panel and DHW preparation as well as the 92 kWp
PV system for electricity generation on-site).
For the Portuguese case study, the embodied carbon emissions of the chosen renovation
scenario represent about 12% in relative contribution of the operational savings while the
embodied TPE is only about 3%. The situation is similar for the Spanish case study with
respectively 1% and 2% of embodied carbon emissions and embodied TPE compared to the
operational carbon emissions and TPE savings.
50
Figure 23 Comparison of operational carbon emissions and total primary energy savings and additional
embodied carbon emissions and total primary energy for the cost-effective solutions of the
Austrian, Portuguese and Spanish case studies; the negative bars represent the operational
savings while the positive bars represent the additional embodied energy and embodied
carbon emissions
Austria
Portugal
Spain
51
Figure 24 presents the results for the Czech case study where all solutions are cost-effective
except the “v1-elec” solution independent of the LCA indicators. Measure “v3-elec” achieves
higher carbon emissions than the reference case but lower life cycle costs.
Figure 24 Comparison of operational carbon emissions and total primary energy savings and additional
embodied carbon emissions and total primary energy for the cost-effective solutions of the
Czech case study; the negative bars represent the operational savings while the positive bars
represent the additional embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions
Results again show that the operational carbon emissions savings (resp. the operational TPE
savings) are systematically higher than the additional embodied carbon emissions (resp.
embodied TPE) i.e., “we save more than we invest in terms of carbon emissions and TPE”. The
additional embodied carbon emissions and embodied TPE represents:
− 8% to 61% of the operational carbon emissions savings and 7% to 29% of the TPE
savings for the Czech case study;
For the Czech case study, the embodied carbon emissions and embodied TPE represent
respectively 11% and 12% of the operational carbon emissions savings and TPE savings for the
executed renovation. These values represent one of the lowest values of the relative
contribution of embodied carbon emissions and embodied TPE in all the renovation packages
investigated.
Figure 25 presents the results for the Swedish case study where only three to four solutions are
cost-effective and achieve at the same time carbon emissions and TPE reductions.
52
Figure 25 Comparison of operational carbon emissions and total primary energy savings and additional
embodied carbon emissions and total primary energy for the cost-effective solutions of the
Swedish case studies; the negative bars represent the operational savings while the positive
bars represent the additional embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions
Results show that the operational carbon emissions savings (resp. the operational TPE savings)
are systematically higher than the additional embodied carbon emissions (resp. embodied TPE)
i.e., “we save more than we invest in terms of carbon emissions and TPE”. The additional
embodied carbon emissions and embodied TPE represents:
− 15% to 35% of the operational carbon emissions savings and 18% to 25% of the TPE
savings for the Swedish case study;
For the Swedish case study, the embodied carbon emissions and embodied TPE represent
respectively 24% and 25% of the operational carbon emissions savings and TPE savings.
These values are more important compared to the other case studies chosen renovation
scenarios where the relative contribution of embodied carbon emissions and embodied TPE are
below 12%. This can be explained by the relative environmentally friendly heating system
already in place before the renovation (district heating with 81% of renewables). In that context,
the operational energy savings are less important e.g., in terms of carbon emissions and the
additional embodied energy and embodied carbon have a higher share here. However, they do
not change the relevance of undertaking an energy-related renovation of the building as the
tenant will save more every year than the additional embodied energy and embodied carbon
emissions.
53
As the Danish case study does not present any cost-effective solutions, the operational savings
compared to the additional embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions are not
presented in details in this report35. However, it has to be mentioned that the same trends as for
the other countries were found for all Danish renovation packages i.e., hypotheses 1 and 2 are
also verified for non-cost-effective packages.
Further explanations of the share of embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions
for the six case studies
The differences in the share of the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions are
mainly due to the reference state of each building including the existing efficiency and
environmental impacts of the BITS. For instance, the share of embodied energy and embodied
carbon emissions compared to the operational savings is much more important in countries and
case studies that have a more efficient heating system before renovation. This is notably the
case in Sweden where the building is already connected before renovation to a District Heating
with more than 80% of renewables. In that case, the carbon emissions of the building before
renovation is already “small” compared to the other renovation case studies where much more
inefficient and more environmental harmful systems were in place (e.g., in the Portuguese case
study the existing building includes an oil boiler). These reference state of each building mainly
explains why the share of embodied energy varies from a very small percentage in the Spanish,
Austrian, Portuguese case studies to a more important value in the Swedish case study for
instance.
As the Swedish case study is a “good example” of a renovation where the embodied energy
and carbon emissions can play a role due to the existing state of the building, a further analysis
is presented below for more renovation measures.
4.4. Embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions payback
times
To complement the results presented in this chapter, it is also possible to determine the
payback time of the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions. This parameter
represents the number of years needed to offset the initial investment in terms of primary
35 The embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions results are only presented for the cost-effective solutions which are the main
focus of the IEA EBC project. Further LCA and LCC results about this case study can be found in Venus et al (2015).
54
energy or carbon emissions of the manufacturing of construction materials and BITS compared
to the annual operational savings36.
As an illustration, Table 6 and Table 7 present the results of the payback times calculated for
some of the case studies of this project. They are presented as a range for all the cost-effective
renovation packages.
Table 6 Examples of embodied Total Primary Energy payback times for the cost-effective renovation
packages of the Austrian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish case studies
Case studies Embodied Total Primary Energy payback times
Austria 2.5 – 4.5 years
Portugal 5 – 12 years
Spain 0.1 – 0.7 years
Czech Republic not calculated
Sweden 9 – 11 years
Denmark (no cost-effective renovation packages)
Table 7 Examples of embodied carbon emissions payback times for the cost-effective renovation
packages of the Austrian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish case studies
Case studies Embodied carbon emissions payback times
Austria 4 – 5 years
Portugal 1 – 4 years
Spain 0.1 – 0.3 years
Czech Republic not calculated
Sweden 1.7 – 2.4 years
Denmark (no cost-effective renovation packages)
Whatever the indicators (primary energy or carbon emissions), in all cost-effective solutions,
results show that the payback times range from 0.1 to 12 years. Generally speaking, when the
current state of the building is very poor, the operational energy savings are very high and the
36 It should be highlighted that this payback time only captures the initial embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions relat ed to
the manufacturing. In that sense, it does not account for the embodied energy and embodied carbon related to the replacement of
components over the service life of the building as well as the embodied energy and embodied carbon related to the end of life of components.
55
levels of insulation only comply with current regulations, the embodied energy (and carbon
emissions) remain negligible. For example, this is the case for the Spanish case study for which
the payback time is very small less than a year (0.1 to 0.7). In opposite, when the current state
of the building is already more efficient (e.g., in Sweden with a district heating with a high share
of renewables), the operational energy savings are smaller and the contribution of embodied
energy and carbon emissions are more important leading to a higher payback time (9 to 11
years for the embodied total primary energy payback time). This is particularly the case for
renovation aiming at a very high energy efficiency i.e., more insulation is needed as well as
more efficient BITS.
4.5. Summary of findings
In this chapter, LCA results were analyzed for the cost-effective renovation packages of the six
case studies. The following hypotheses related to the influence of embodied energy and
embodied carbon emissions of energy related renovation measures were verified for all cost-
effective solutions.
1. The operational savings of the energy related renovation measures assessed are higher than the additional embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions in any cost-effective renovation measures.
2. The integration of embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions of the energy related renovation measures assessed does not change the cost-effective renovation packages.
For all the cost-effective solutions analysed in this project, the embodied energy and embodied
carbon emissions remain not significant, i.e., “we save more than we invest” in terms of
ecological aspects (validation of hypothesis 1)37. In addition, the integration of embodied
energy and embodied carbon emissions does not change the cost-effective renovation
packages solutions. It only reduces the achievable operational energy savings (validation of
hypothesis 2). For all the cost-effective solutions identified in the six case studies, the lower the
total primary energy and total carbon emissions, the higher (in relative contribution i.e., in %) the
embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions.
37 However, it is important to mention that according to the LCA methodology defined in this project, this hypothesis is also verified for
non-cost-effective solutions even if these solutions are not in the primary scope of the project’s results.
56
In addition, the payback times for the initial embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions
(i.e., for the manufacturing of construction materials and BITS) was found rather low and is
estimated about 1 to 12 years in all the cost-effective renovation measures of the different case
studies38,39.
38 It should be highlighted that this payback time only captures the initial embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions related to
the manufacturing. In that sense, it does not account for the recurring embodied energy and embodied carbon related to the
replacement of components over the service life of the building as well as the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions
related to the end of life.
39 Not calculated for Denmark and Czech Republic case studies
57
5. Recommendations
The integration of LCA in the Annex 56 methodology enables to adopt a life cycle perspective
for energy-related building renovation by taking into account not only the operational energy but
also the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions related to the manufacturing,
replacement and end-of-life (e.g., disposal or recycling) of construction materials and BITS. It
was found that embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions are not very influential in the
project’s building renovation case studies due to the focus towards cost-effective renovation
solutions (in other words, the cost effective solutions “limit” the influence of the embodied
energy)40.
However, these results do not mean a LCA approach is not relevant for building renovation. In
fact, it is now well accepted that the primary energy and carbon emissions optimization for both
new and existing buildings should be done using a life cycle perspective. This perspective is
particularly valid for nearly zero carbon emissions or nearly zero energy renovation, for which
the relative contribution of the embodied energy or embodied carbon emissions is likely to rise
as far as the renovation becomes significant. Indeed, generally speaking, it theoretically exists
an optimum where the operational energy use reduction balances the increase of the embodied
energy use. Figure 26 presents an illustration for the determination of the insulation thickness of
the building envelope (roof, walls and basement for instance).
Figure 26 Illustration of the optimum insulation thickness in a fictive building renovation for the total
primary energy indicator
40 This result is also explained by the limited scope of the LCA system boundaries. It only takes into account the materials and BITS
that have an influence on the energy performance of the building. This choice does not consider the embodied energy and embodied carbon of the other added construction materials (interior walls, floor coatings etc. ) and BITS (e.g., sanitary and electric equipment)
58
In that context, LCA is a relevant methodology to be recommended in future policies and
practices in renovation projects to assess renovation measures over the life cycle of the
building.
To date, LCA is already linked to some EU regulations related to the environmental impacts of
building products and building integrated technical systems. The recent Construction Products
Regulation (CPR) contains additional Basic (Work) Requirements (BWR), particularly the
addition of ‘environment’ to BWR 3 (hygiene and health) and the new BWR 7 (Sustainable use
of natural resources), stating that “Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) should be used
when available for the assessment of the sustainable use of resources and of the impact of
construction works on the environment” (CPR 2011). In this last example, LCA is already
promoted by an EU regulation as the basis for product assessments, especially in providing
Environmental Product Declaration (EPDs)41. These kinds of data form an important data
source in Europe for building LCA studies both new or renovation projects according to the EN
15804 and EN 15978 standards (Lasvaux et al, 2014).
Over the last few years, this new Construction Product Regulation (CPR) has created a demand
for building product EPDs as a mechanism to meet the additional requirements (mentioned
above). Consequently, building product manufacturers are now more and more keen in
providing the EPDs of their products in different countries (Passer et al, 2015). In the same time,
European construction products association develops common rules to harmonize the LCA
application in the building sector see e.g., the ECO Platform initiative (ECO Platform, 2016). So
all these data form of basis of assessing the embodied energy and carbon emissions in future
building policies.
At the building level, voluntary green building labelling systems that assess the environmental
sustainability of buildings like BREEAM (UK), DGNB (Germany), HQE (France), SNBS
(Switzerland) more and more rely on LCA for assessing the embodied impacts of construction
materials and BITS but also for assessing the operational energy use of both new and existing
buildings. Finally, building-level LCA regulations are being discussed in some countries e.g., in
UK and Austria (Mistretta et al, 2016).
5.1. Recommendations for policy makers
In that context, it becomes clear that LCA will be more and more used as a policy instrument at
different levels (products and buildings) in different countries. The next step is now to integrate it
in energy efficient related policies for buildings. For instance, LCA can contribute to switch from
41 An EPD is a product-specific and/or company-specific LCA that describes the environmental impacts of a product sold in the market
(the environmental impacts generally includes the assessment of the primary energy and carbon emissions among other indicators)
59
the limited scope within the recast of the Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD) of
the European Union42 (assessment of the operational energy use) towards a broader scope (life
cycle perspective from “cradle-to-grave”) and a broader set of environmental indicators to
assess building renovation projects.
The recent European Commission Communication on Sustainable Buildings is clearly promoting
the alignment of energy efficiency policies with LCA related aspects mentioning that:
“Existing policies for promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in buildings need to
be complemented with policies for resource efficiency which look at a wider range of
environmental impacts across the life-cycle of buildings” (European Commission, 2012).
As a result, the following recommendations to policy makers can be drawn for the integration of
LCA in building renovation policies.
General recommendation for the use of LCA in building renovation (policy makers):
1) If the goal is to increase the energy efficiency of a renovated building, new policy in the field should include a life cycle perspective to require the assessment, next to the operational energy use, the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions. By doing so, the upcoming policies will contribute to globally minimise the primary energy or carbon emissions of energy-efficient renovation measures.
2) If a LCA is to be promoted in the new policy, precise rules should be developed using the best practice e.g., available LCA database, LCA methodology (e.g., detailed in technical reports or standards) and LCA target values for renovated buildings43
42 European Parliament and Council of the European Union (2010) Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the counc il
of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast);
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012, supplementing Directive 2010/31EU on the energy performance of buildings, establishing a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost -optimal levels of minimum energy
performance requirements for buildings and building elements;
Directive 212/2/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC;
European Commission, Guidelines accompanying Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012,
supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings, 2012 /C 115/01;
European Commission, Guidelines accompanying Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012,
supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings, 2012 /C 115/01;
European Commission (2011), Meeting Document for the Expert Workshop on the comparative framework methodology for cost
optimal minimum energy performance requirements In preparation of a delegated act in accordance with Art 29 0 TF EU 6 May 2011
in Brussels;
43 For instance, in Switzerland, database (KBOB), methodology and tools (e.g., the SIA 2031, SIA 2032, SIA 2039 and SIA 2040
technical books) and target values (available in the SIA 2040 target values) allow a practitioner to address this recommendat ion. Similar tools and methodologies are in development or already exist in Europe with a varying level of maturity
60
5.2. Recommendations for professional owners
The previous recommendations for policy makers are also relevant for professional owners.
Indeed, once public policies will integrate LCA as a basis of the new assessment framework for
a building renovation, professional owners will be likely to use it as part of their decision making
tools.
In line with the other IEA EBC parallel project (Annex 57), further recommendations can be
drawn for decision makers like the professional owners (Lützkendorf et al, 2016). They may be
interested to reduce the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions of their renovation
measures.
Materials and BITS choice to reduce embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions
They should also use construction materials and BITS during a renovation with a minimum
embodied energy and embodied carbon value. This choice should be verified by taking also into
account the operational energy consumption. This life cycle perspective allows appropriate
renovation strategies to be implemented by the professional owners.
Tools for the assessment of materials choice
More and more assessment tools are developed to link embodied energy with operational
energy use enabling to identify trade-offs and finally select the most appropriate renovation
measure in terms of primary energy or carbon emissions (Passer et al, 2016). Professional
owners are recommended to use the existing web-based and software tools that can be used at
different stages of the design process to assist them in this task. Some tools combine both a
3D-modeling of the building, an energy calculation and a LCA. The tools can also integrate the
Building Information Modelling (BIM) approach to ease the assessment. May tools already exist
and a detailed review of existing tools incorporating LCA can be found in the EeBGuide Infohub
(Lasvaux et Gantner, 2012). For the professional owners interested in using compliant Annex
56 tools, they can use e.g. the Eco-bat (and new Eco-sai) tool developed in Switzerland as well
as the ASCOT tool developed in Denmark.
61
Recommendation for the use of LCA in building renovation (professional owners):
1) If the goal is to increase the energy efficiency of a renovated building, a LCA perspective should be used to assess, next to the operational energy use, the embodied energy and embodied carbon emissions. By doing so, solutions that globally minimise the primary energy or carbon emissions indicators could be promoted.
2) If a LCA is conducted by the decision maker, use the best practice in the corresponding country e.g., available LCA database, LCA methodology (e.g., detailed in technical reports or standards) and LCA target values for renovated buildings44
44 For instance, in Switzerland, database (KBOB), methodology and tools (e.g., the SIA 2031, SIA 2032, SIA 2039 and SIA 2040
technical books) and target values (available in the SIA 2040 target values) allow a practitioner to address this recommendation. Similar tools and methodologies are in development or already exist in Europe with a varying level of maturity
62
6. Conclusions
The findings of the Life Cycle Assessment for Cost-Effective Energy and Carbon Emissions
Optimization in Building Renovation showed that the embodied energy and embodied
carbon emissions does not change the cost-effective solutions identified without taking them
into account. However, the use of LCA will be more and more relevant in upcoming cost-
effective building renovation projects as more and more projects towards near zero energy
renovation become cost-effective. For these specific cases (zero energy renovation), the
only impacts are then linked to the additional embodied impacts due to the materials and
BITS added for the renovation. The methodology defined in this Annex 56 project is then a
first contribution towards the integration of LCA in upcoming public policies and in the
assessment of decision makers and professional owners.
Perspectives following the IEA EBC Annex 56 (LCA workpackage)
From a more LCA methodological point of view, the shift towards near zero energy building
renovation needs also further works in terms of LCA calculation rules. As the on-site RES
are intermittent energy generation sources, they have implications on the local energy grids
with import/export of energy to supply the demand at all time. In that context, the energy
consumption of buildings with on-site RES could be precised (e.g., hourly assessment with
dynamic simulation tools). The LCA conversion factors (primary energy and carbon
emissions) for energy grids could be adapted (e.g., by using hourly profiles) to match the
hourly energy demand of the building e.g., use hourly CO2 emissions profiles for the
electricity. In that context, further works could be done e.g., within the IEA EBC programme
to clarify the LCA related environmental impacts between the renovated/new buildings (with
different on-site RES systems) and the energy grids (e.g., the electricity grid). Such work
concerns the adaptation of the LCA approach for buildings with on-site RES systems. It
could start from the works already done e.g., in IEA EBC Annex 56 and Annex 52 and be
continued in another LCA-related IEA EBC Annex project in the future.
63
7. Appendix 1: additional information for the LCA methodology of energy related building renovation
7.1. Components and materials included in the LCA of energy
related renovation measures
When performing a comparative LCA of energy related renovation measures, it is important to
define which components have to be included in the calculation.
One of the objectives of taking into account building components in an LCA is to analyse the
trade-offs between increased environmental impacts due to components added to improve the
energy performance of the building and decreased environmental impacts due to the reduction
of operational energy demand.
Materials and components to be included in the LCA
The project focuses on cost and environmental benefits of energy related renovation measures.
Therefore, the LCA must at least include the environmental impacts of the following
components:
− Materials added for the renovation of the thermal envelope of the building (see below)
and components for building integrated technical systems (see subsequent paragraphs);
− Materials /components that need to be replaced due to energy related building
renovation to provide the same building function before and after energy related
renovation (see subsequent paragraphs).
Materials for the thermal envelope
Since the focus of the assessment is on renovation measures that affect the energy use of the
building, the impacts of renovating the thermal envelope (walls, windows, roofs, ground floor,
etc.) is one major subject of LCA. Thereby, construction elements that do not affect the
building's energy performance, like internal walls or doors, are not taken into account.
A wall as an element of the thermal envelope can be decomposed in layers, as schematised in
Figure 27.
64
Figure 27 Example of a construction element composed of different materials (layers)
The weight of the layer can be easily calculated. For a homogeneous layer (constant thickness)
it can be deducted from the element’s surface area, the material’s thickness and density. For
non-homogenous layers the percentage of area occupied by each material must be defined.
The service life of the materials should also be reported and allows calculating the number of
replacements during the life of a building (see subsequent paragraph). The position and role of
a material in the construction element, will affect its service life of the component.
Components for building integrated technical systems (BITS)
The components for building integrated technical systems include the components replaced or
added, which have an effect on the building's energy performance. For instance:
− Replacing existing components: new radiators; adding insulation of pipes, etc.;
− Adding new components: mechanical ventilation, a solar thermal or PV system, etc.
Components which have no particular influence on energy use, production, distribution and on
carbon emissions are not taken into account (for instance: sinks, bathtub, replacement of piping,
etc.). If in any renovation scenario (including “anyway" renovation) energy related measures
have to be replaced, it is assumed, that they are replaced by the same components not aiming
at higher energy efficiency (corresponding to the cost calculations).
Environmental impact data for BITS components might be difficult to find. One possible source
of information is the Swiss-KBOB database (“KBOB database”), which provides a complete set
of information for energy related BITS. The information is easy to apply in the calculation. Table
8 describes the information required to model the technical equipment of a building using the
KBOB database.
Concrete
Insulation
Roughcast
65
Table 8 Information required for assessing the environmental impacts of building integrated technical
systems (BITS)
BITS Example of components Information required
Heat production
Boiler, heat pump, storage, borehole heat exchanger
Power needed [W/m2 heated floor area]
Presence of borehole heat exchanger
Heat distribution
Radiators, heated floors, distribution pipes, etc.
Type of distribution (radiators, heated floor, air)
Ventilation Mechanical air handler,
ducts, heat exchanger, etc.
Type of channels (steel, synthetic)
Channels’ length
Specific air flow rate [m3/(h m
2)]
Presence of ground-coupled heat exchangers and tubes length
Solar thermal systems
Collectors, assembly, piping Type of use (DHW, DHW + heating)
Type of building (single family house, multiple dwelling, etc.)
PV systems
Collectors, assembly, inverter, wiring
Collector type (mono-Si, poly-Si, etc.)
Collector area [m2]
Mountings type (wall, flat or slanted roof)
Materials/components added to provide the same function.
Generally speaking, in LCA comparison of e.g., renovation scenarios should be made on the
basis of the same functional equivalent according to EN 15978 (2011)45 including all the
technical functions needed to maintain the safety, comfort level for the occupants. In energy
related building renovation, this might not always be the case as some building elements can be
removed, replaced or added during the renovation. One typical example is the case of a
balcony, which is an extension of the internal storey slab before the renovation. In order to
prevent this thermal bridge, the original balcony is removed. The thermal envelope is improved
and a new balcony is added alongside the renovated façade. Subsequently, there are some
more examples:
− The construction of a larger energy storage room (for instance replacing an electric
heating system, with a pellet boiler requiring the construction of additional storage
space);
− Reinforcing the roof structure to install solar thermal collectors;
− Etc.
Two different situations can occur:
− If new materials and components, not related to energy related renovation measures
(and corresponding to the “anyway renovation” as defined in Ott et al (2015)), are added
45 Or the same functional unit according to ISO 14'040-ISO 14’044 standards
66
to provide the same building function (before and after renovation): In this case the
impacts of these materials and components have also to be included in the LCA;
− If a material/component, not related to energy related renovation measures, is removed
during the renovation and is not replaced, it will not be included in the LCA (for instance
a balcony removed to prevent the thermal bridge). In this case, it must be documented
as negative or positive co-benefit.
7.2. Service life and replacement period
The service life is defined as the time during which a building component (construction
material, BITS component) fulfils its function. At the end of its service life, the product must
be replaced.
Service life of construction components
Even if there are values for the average service life for particular types of materials or products,
the real service life depends on economic aspects and the conditions of use (in contact with the
outside, solar radiation, weather influences, etc.).
Table 9 lists average service life times of BITS and Table 10 average service life times of
construction components suggested to be used. The basis taken into account to define these
values is the Swiss SIA 2032 technical book regarding embodied energy in buildings (SIA
Merkblatt 2032 «Graue Energie von Gebäuden», 2010). They have been reviewed by the
project’s partners and adapted in order to comply with a global energy renovation context.
Table 9 Service life time of building integrated technical systems suggested to be used in the
methodology
Building integrated technical system (BITS) Service life time [years]
Heat production 20
Heat distribution 30
Ventilation 30
Solar thermal 25
Solar PV 30
Geothermal probe (heat-pump) 30
Figure 28 shows an example for the service life of different layers of a floor in contact with the
ground.
67
- Floating screed: 30 years
Floor above the ground
- Insulation: 30 years- Water sealing : 30 years
- Concrete (structure): remaining reference study period (RSP)
- Light concrete : remaining RSP
- Air sealing : 30 years
- Internal surface (tiles, carpet, …): 15-25 years
Figure 28 Examples for the service life of components in a construction element
68
Table 10 Service life time of construction products for the thermal envelope (*RSP = Study period in the reference case, assuming that the product will
not be replaced)
Type of
element
Position of the material (relative to the structural layer)
Location Service life
[years] Example(s)
Roof Structure - RSP Concrete, rafters
Roof External Against exterior, flat roof 30 Insulation, waterproofing, vegetal layer, vapour barrier
Roof External Against exterior slanted roof 40 Tiles, lathing and counter-lathing, weatherproofing
Roof External Against ground 40
Roof Internal - 40 Insulation, vapour barrier, coatings
Wall External Against ground 40
Wall External With external insulation 30
15
Insulation, roughcast, boarding
Paint, varnish
Wall External Without external insulation 40
15
Roughcast, boarding
Paint, varnish
Wall Structure Bearing or not RSP Concrete, bricks, wooden frame
Wall Internal - 30 Insulation, vapour barrier, coatings
Window / Door - Against exterior 20
Floor Internal
30
25
15
Hard coating: Ceramic tiles
Medium coating: Wooden or synthetic parquets
Soft coating: Carpets
Floor Internal Between the structure and interior 30 Floating screed, water sealing, insulation
Floor Structure Above
ground or cellar RSP Concrete, wooden beams
Floor External Above ground RSP Under floor insulation, light concrete, etc.
Floor External Against exterior 40 Insulation, coating
69
7.3. Reference assessment period of the renovated building
LCA is carried out on the basis of a chosen reference study period, for which all impacts of
materials/components and energy consumed are determined.
For new buildings, the reference study period is usually defined as the estimated service life of
the building. For renovated buildings, the reference study period can be:
− The period between the current renovation and the next major upcoming one. A typical
value is 30 years, which corresponds to the period between the building construction
and the first important renovation, which could be motivated by energy purposes or more
likely motivated by wear and tear.
− The period between the current renovation and the end of the life of the building. A
typical value is 60 years.
The number of energy related renovations is limited by the life of a building. The lower energy
demand after renovation, the less a major energy related renovation will be undertaken in the
future. It is impossible to know, which products will be used to replace current energy related
construction elements in the future. It is also impossible to know which energy vectors will be
used if e.g. the boiler will be replaced (in about 30 year).
The reference study period should be equal or longer than the service life of the (energy
related) building components analysed in order to avoid any misinterpretation of the results.
Therefore, it is suggested to assume a reference study period of 60 years. If another reference
study period is assumed, it should be reported and documented.
Number of replacements during the assessment period
Due to a limited service life, construction products will usually be replaced one or several times
before the end of the building’s life. The number of future replacements depends on their
estimated service life (ESL) and the study or assessment period for the building (SP). No
replacement is required if the service life of a building element meets or exceeds the required
service life of the building (foundations, bearing wall, etc.).
In practice, only a full number of replacements (no partial replacements) can be taken into the
assessment of the impacts of building elements replaced. In the case of a partial number of
replacements, the number of replacements is rounded upward.
70
8. Appendix 2: inter-comparison exercise for building LCA tools
Each partner implemented the methodology defined in chapter 2 either by using spreadsheets,
existing European LCA tools like the Swiss Eco-Bat or by developing new tools e.g., the
ASCOT tool developed for Denmark. In order to ensure a consistent implementation of the LCA
methodology in the six detailed case studies, an inter-comparison of LCA tools and
spreadsheets used by the different partners was conducted on a simple test building to check
that each partner is able to get to the same results.
The appendix provides the background assumptions and detailed results of the inter-
comparison.
8.1. Building description
The building which has to be compared for different national context conditions comprises two
dwellings, with the following surface area.
Table 11 Building description
Unit Value
Global data
Heated floor area m2 204.7
Thermally active airflow (external heated air flow) m3/(m
2h) 0.3
Surface area of the individual building elements
Roof m2 105.2
Wood façade m2 164.4
Masonry façade ag. Exterior m2 91.6
Masonry façade ag. Garage m2 11.99
Floor above garage m2 20.36
Ground floor m2 73.5
Windows (total area) m2 20.57
Windows – wooden frame ratio % 25
Door (total area) m2 6.18
71
8.2. Methodology for the inter-comparison of LCA tools on a test
building
8.2.1. Life cycle stages
In this simple case study, the following stages are taken into account for construction materials
and BITS components:
− Manufacturing (module A1-A3 according to EN 15978)
− Replacement (module B4 according to EN 15978)
− End of life (module C according to EN 15978)
Other stages such as transport to the building site, maintenance, construction and demolition
related impacts can also be taken into account if reported
8.2.2. Service lives
Construction elements
Some tools might evaluate materials service lives automatically. If it is not the case and a help is
needed in defining these, the project’s partners suggests the following values, depending on
element type, location and material type and position (see Table below):
72
Technical systems
Technical systems replacements should also to be taken into account during the building
lifespan. The LCA methodology suggests the following service lives:
8.3. Construction elements
This chapter presents the construction elements that are renovated. The elements not
mentioned in this chapter are not renovated. New materials added during the renovation
process are displayed in RED. Existing materials are displayed in BLACK.
8.3.1. Windows and doors
All windows are replaced by the following type:
− Triple glazing with two low-emissivity layer, with argon in-between. Spacer is in PVC.
− Wooden frame, which represent 25% of the windows area.
Doors are not replaced.
73
8.3.2. Wood façade
This is an inhomogeneous element. The renovated part should be modelled with two different
sections:
− 1st section: 4 – 5b– 6, covers 90% of the element area
− 2nd section: 4 – 5a –6, covers 10% of the element area
8.3.3. Masonry façade against exterior
1. Softwood (conifer), 15 [mm], ρ = 520 [kg/m³]
2a. Glasswool insulation, 100 [mm], ρ = 40 [kg/m³]
2b. Air, 40 [mm]
2c. Hardwood, bearing structure, 140 [mm], ρ = 700
[kg/m³
3. Hardwood, 24 [mm], ρ = 700 [kg/m³]
4. EPS insulation, 240 [mm], ρ = 15 [kg/m³]
5a. Hardwood, 45 [mm], ρ = 700 [kg/m³]
5b. Air, 45 [mm]
6. Hardwood, 24 [mm], ρ = 700 [kg/m³]
1. Softwood (conifers), 15 [mm], ρ = 520 [kg/m³]
2. Glasswool insulation, 100 [mm], ρ = 40 [kg/m³]
3. Cement bricks, 180 [mm], ρ = 1200 [kg/m³]
4. Cement mortar cover coat, 10 [mm], ρ = 1800 [kg/m³]
5. EPS insulation, 220 [mm], ρ = 15 [kg/m³]
6. Cement mortar cover coat, 10 [mm], ρ = 1800 [kg/m³]
1 2 3 4 5 6
6 5 4 3 2 1
74
8.3.4. Masonry façade against garage
8.3.5. Ground floor
8.3.6. Floor above garage
1. Softwood (conifers),15 [mm], ρ = 520 [kg/m³]
2. Glasswool insulation, 100 [mm], ρ = 40 [kg/m³]
3. Cement bricks, 180 [mm], ρ = 1200 [kg/m³]
4. Cement mortar cover coat, 10 [mm], ρ = 1800 [kg/m³]
5. EPS insulation, 40 [mm], ρ = 15 [kg/m³]
6. Particle board, cement bonded, 10 [mm], ρ = 50 [kg/m³]
1. Concrete C30/37, 200 [mm], ρ = 2400 [kg/m³]
2. Vapour barrier (PE), 0.2 [mm], ρ = 920
[kg/m³]
3. PUR insulation, 30 [mm], ρ = 30 [kg/m³]
4. Anhydrite screed, 45 [mm], ρ = 2000 [kg/m³]
5. Ceramic tiles, 9 [mm], ρ = 1900 [kg/m³]
1. Particle board, cement bonded, 5 [mm], ρ = 50 [kg/m³]
2. EPS insulation, 115 [mm], ρ = 15 [kg/m³]
3. Particle board, cement bonded , ép.5 [mm], ρ = 50
[kg/m³]
4. Reinforced concrete C30/37, with 90 kg steel /m³, 160
[mm], ρ = 2400 [kg/m³]
5a. Softwood (conifer), 27 [mm], ρ = 520 [kg/m³]
5b. Air, 27 [mm]
6. Wood parquet, 3 layers, vitrified, 24 [mm], ρ = 900
[kg/m³]
1 2 3 4 56 2 1 3 4 5
1
3 4
2
1 2 3
4
5 6
5
4 4
4 3
4 2
4 1
4
75
8.3.7. Roof
This is an inhomogeneous element. The renovated part should be modelled with two different
sections:
− 1st section: 4 – 5 – 6b – 7 – 8, covers 90% of the element area
− 2nd section: 4 – 5 – 6a – 7– 8, covers 10% of the element area
8.4. Building integrated technical systems
− Heating: heating is provided by an air-water heat pump which covers 100% of the
building needs. Heat pump efficiency (annual COP) is 2.03 [-] for heating and power
needed is 19.8 [W/m² (heated floor area)] ;
− Domestic hot water: DHW is produced by solar thermal collectors and by the air-water
heat pump. The solar thermal installation (5 m² of flat plate collectors) yearly covers 65%
of the energy needs. The heat pump provides the rest. The DHW power needs for the
heat pump is 1.3 [W/m² (heated floor area)] and its annual COP is 2.34 for DHW [-];
− Heat distribution: the heat hydraulic distribution network (radiators) is renovated;
− Photovoltaic systems: part of the electricity consumption of the building is provided by
the on-site PV installation. It comprises 10 m² of monocrystalline panels mounted on the
slanted roof (1kWp). It produces 1’288 kWh of electricity yearly. The remaining electricity
needs are covered by the grid;
− Ventilation: Double flow (AHU) with steel channels, external heated air flow 0.3 m³/(
m²h);
1. Softwood (conifers), 15 [mm], ρ = 520 [kg/m³]
2a. Glasswool insulation, 100 [mm], ρ = 40 [kg/m³]
2b. Air, 60mm
2c. Hardwood, bearing structure, 160 [mm], ρ = 700 [kg/m³]
3. Hardwood, 18 [mm], ρ = 700 [kg/m³]
4. Bitumer sealing, 1.3 [mm], ρ = 1160 [kg/m³]
5. PUR insulation, 200 [mm], ρ = 30 [kg/m³]
6a. Softwood (conifers), 60 [mm], ρ = 520 [kg/m³]
6b. Air, 60mm
7. Softwood (conifers), 27 [mm], ρ = 520 [kg/m³]
8. Terra cotta files, 20 [mm], ρ = 1700 [kg/m³]
8 7 6a. 6b. 5 4 3 2c 2b 2a
1
76
− Sanitary and electrical systems are not renovated.
8.5. Operational energy consumption
In order to calculate the energy saved and the corresponding environmental impacts reduction
due to the energy related renovation measures, Tables 12 and 13 presents the energy needs
before and after renovation:
Table 12 Operational energy consumption before renovation
Energy needs
[kWh/an] Energy carrier Cover [%] Efficiency [%]
Heating 29’588 Light fuel oil 100 90
Domestic hot water 1’912 Light fuel oil 100 90
Lighting 1’939 Electricity 100 100
Electrical equipment 920 Electricity 100 100
Table 13 Operational energy consumption after renovation
Energy needs
[kWh/an] Energy carrier Cover [%] Efficiency [%]
Heating 7’598 Electricity 100 203
Domestic hot water 1’912
Electricity 35 234
Solar thermal panels
65 -
Lighting 1’939 Electricity 661 100
Electrical equipment 920 Electricity 302
100
Ventilation 740 Electricity 100 100
1,2 : The PV system covers the rest.
8.6. Primary energy and carbon emissions conversion factors
In order to make the results better comparable, the electricity taken into account in this case
study is the low voltage UCTE mix, rather than to take the national low voltage for each country.
The following table presents the impact values for UCTE electricity at plug kWh.
77
Table 14 Primary energy and carbon emissions LCA-based conversion factors used in the inter-
comparison exercise (UCTE electricity mix)
Non-renewable primary energy
[MJ/kWh]
Total primary energy [MJ/kWh]
Carbon emissions
[kg CO2-eq/kWh]
Heating 11.95 12.74 0.595
78
9. Appendix 3: Integrated Performance View (IPV) template
The template of the IPV is presented below for the specific case of a renovated Swiss building
with the LCA and LCC results before and after renovation. It has to be noticed that this template
can only be used to report a final assessment and is not able to handle a comparison of
different renovation scenarios.
Figure 29 IPV template filled in for the specific case of reporting the building description building before
and after renovation: example of “Les Charpentiers”46
46 A building renovation case study from Switzerland presented in the report “Shining Examples of Cost-Effective Energy and Carbon
Emissions Optimization in Building Renovation (Annex 56)” available online: http://www.iea-annex56.org/Groups/GroupItemID87/BROCHURE_2.pdf
Gross floor area (before/after): [m2]
Forme factor (after): [-]
Heating / cooling degree day: [°d]
More information:
CommentsThe last attic f loor was added in the 80th. On South and East facades were balconies.
CommentsThe facade's renovation is made of a prefabricated elements (Gap solution) placed in front of the
balconies. Thus there is no more thermal bridge and the total gross heated f loor area increases of 14%.
Total 156 Total 30.3
(Common appl.) Lift + laundry 1.9 (Common appl.) Lift + laundry 2.3
Ventilation Air extraction system 0.4 Ventilation Mechanical ventilation heat recovery MVHR 1.7
Lighting Fluocompact 0.7 Lighting LED 0.4
Auxiliaries Distribution pumps 1.8 Auxiliaries Distribution pumps 2.3
Cooling - - Cooling - -
DHW Gas boiler 27.2 DHW Gas boiler 110 kW + CHP 12 kWth and 5 kWel 14.4
Heating Gas boiler 124 Heating Gas boiler 110 kW + CHP 12 kWth and 5 kWel 9.2
BITS DescriptionFinal energy
[kWk/(m2 y)]BITS Description
Final energy
[kWh/(m2 y)]
Floor Plaster 50 mm + Mineral wool 20mm + Concret 1.11 Floor Plaster 50 mm + Mineral wool 20mm + Concret 1.11
Glazing/Frame Double glazing / wood frame 2.9 / 1.3 Glazing/Frame Triple glazing / PVC frame 0.70 / 0.72
Facade Concret + Plaster 1.2 Facade Concret 200 mm + Mineral wool 180 mm + GAP module 0.17
Roof Unheated attic 3.5 Roof Mineral wool 160 mm / Mineral wool 300 mm 0.21/ 0.13
Before renovation After renovation
Construction
elementsDescription (energy related)
U-value
[W/(m2 K)]Construction
elementsDescription (energy related)
U-value
[W/(m2 K)]
Building type: Multifamiliy house 2392/0
Building structure: Reinforced concrete SFOE report
Les CharpentiersLocation: Morges, Switzerland 4'280 / 4'836
Construction/Renovation: 1965 / 2010 0.71
Avant rénovation Après rénovation
79
Figure 30 IPV template filled in for the specific case of reporting the LCA and LCC results of a building
before and after renovation: example of “Les Charpentiers”47
47 A building renovation case study from Switzerland presented in the report “Shining Examples of Cost-Effective Energy and Carbon
Emissions Optimization in Building Renovation (Annex 56)” available online: http://www.iea-annex56.org/Groups/GroupItemID87/BROCHURE_2.pdf
LCCA methodology: Annex 56 (IEA) Annual interest rate: 3% LCIA methodology: Annex 56 (IEA)
Reference study period: 60 years Increase energy rate: 0% Reference study period: 60 years
Main data source(s): Construction companies (LCCA) Main data source(s): Ecoinvent v2.2 (LCIA)
Life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
Ref. Renov. Ref. Renov. Ref. Renov. Ref. Renov. Ref. Renov.
8.37 0.09 0.42 0.43
8.65 0.14 0.65 0.68
0.00 - - -
0.00 - - -
4.16 - - -
3.07 0.27 1.21 1.29
2.07 - - -
Roof 1099 m2 2.80 Roof 1099 m2 0.35 1.3 1.4
Facade 1235 m2 5.70 Facade 1235 m2 0.39 1.8 3.5
Win. 699 m2 5.37 Win. 699 m2 0.96 4.3 4.5
Floor 169 m2 0.89 Floor 169 m2 0.10 0.4 0.9
12.94 0.96 124 9 29.4 2.2 138.3 10.3 138.8 10.3
2.83 1.50 27 14 6.5 3.4 30.3 16.1 30.4 16.1
- - - - - - - - - -
0.80 1.20 4.7 6.6 0.7 1.0 12.4 17.4 14.3 20.2
16.57 44.74 Total 156 30 37 9 181 54 184 59 Total 852
BIT
S
Common appl.
Enve
lop
eEn
ergy
con
sum
pti
on
Electricity (misc.)
Enve
lop
eEn
ergy
con
sum
pti
on
Cooling
DHW
344 €/m2-element 12.02
Heating
DHW
Cooling
Electricity (misc.)
BIT
S
Heating
DHW
Cooling
Auxiliaries
Lighting
Ventilation
Common appl.
Material / Energy consumption
Final energy GWP PENRE PETotal
[kWh/(m2 y)] [kg-eq CO2/(m2 y)] [kWh/(m2 y)] [kWh/(m2 y)]
Heating
€/m2-element 120.54
960 €/m2-element 138.76
148'598 € 30.73
344 €/m2-element 78.18
472
Lighting 448'816 € 92.81
Ventilation 220'674 € 45.63
Cooling € 0.00
Auxiliaries € 0.00
DHW 820'023 € 169.57
Heating 793'372 € 164.06
Investment cost Annual cost
[€/m2-GFA] [€/m2-GFA/y]Component / Energy consumption Investment cost
Save
d =
125.
9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Ref. Renov.
Final energy [kWh/(m2 y)]
Save
d =
27.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Ref. Renov.
GWP[kg-eq CO2/(m2 y)]
Save
d =
127.
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Ref. Renov.
PENRE
[kWh/(m2 y)]
Save
d =
124.
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Ref. Renov.
PETotal
[kWh/(m2 y)]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Investment cost [€/m2 GFA]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Ref. Renov.
Annual cost[€/m2 GFA/y]
80
10. References
European Commission; 2011: ILCD Handbook - Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in
the European context.
European Commission, 2012: Communication on Sustainable buildings, DG ENV C1, 11 / 2012,
available online: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/planned_ia/docs/2013_env_008_sustainable
_buildings_en.pdf
CEN 2011. EN 15978 Sustainability of construction works. Assessment of environmental performance of
buildings. Calculation method, 64 p.
Citherlet, S.; Defaux, T.; 2007: "Energy and environmental comparison of three variants of a family
house during its whole life span". Building and Environment 42, 591–598.
Citherlet, S.; 2001: "Towards the Holistic Assessment of Building Performance Based on an Integrated
Simulation Approach", 2001.
CPR 2011. REGULATION (EU) No 305/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction
products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC
ECO Platform, 2016. Website of the European Association ECO Platform, accessed online:
http://www.eco-platform.org/
EN ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management-life cycle assessment-Principles and framework
EeBGuide, 2012. Operational Guidance for Life Cycle Assessment Studies of the Energy Efficient
Buildings Initiative: Policy Brief, 4 p, accessed online: http://www.eebguide.eu/eebblog/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/Policy_Brief_EeBGuide_2012-10-31_EN-2.pdf
Fouquet, M., 2015. Réflexions et contributions méthodologiques à l’ACV de bâtiments neufs:
modélisation du contributeur énergie, Thèse de doctorat de l’Université de Grenoble, 187 p.
Fouquet, M.; Lebert, A.; Lasvaux, A.; Peuportier, B.; Roux, C.; Guiot, T.; Buhé, C.; Souyri, B.; 2014:
"Illustration of methodological challenges in energy and environmental assessment of buildings",
Proceedings of the World Sustainable Buildings Conference SB14, Barcelona, 28-30 October 2014.
IEA, 2012. "IEA SHC Task 40 / EBC Annex 52 “Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings”." from
http://www.iea-shc.org/tasks-current
IEA; 2014; "Analysis of load match and grid interaction indicators in net zero energy buildings with high
resolution data"; Subtask A.; Buildings; International Energy Agency
ISO 15686-1:2011, Buildings and constructed assets -- Service life planning -- Part 1: General principles
and framework, ISO/TC 59/SC 14, International Organisation for Standardisation.
81
Lasvaux S, Gantner J, Wittstock B, Bazzana M, Schiopu N, Suanders T, Gazulla C, Mundy J-A, Sjöström
C, Fullana-i-Palmer P, Barrow-Williams T, Braune A, Anderson J, Lenz K, Takacs Z, Hans J, Chevalier
J. 2014. Achieving consistency in life cycle assessmentpractice within the European construction sector:
the role of the EeBGuide InfoHub. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1783–1793
Lasvaux S., Gantner J., 2012. Requirements for building LCA tool developer. Report of the EU FP7
EeBGuide project, Appendix “Review of available LCA tools”, available online:
http://www.eebguide.eu/eebblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/D-4.3.-Requirements-for-Building-LCA-
tool-designer.pdf
Lützkendorf et al, 2016. Draft report on Evaluation methods for embodied energy and CO2eq, Annex 57
‘Evaluation of Embodied Energy and CO2eq for Building Construction’
Masson G., Briano J., Baez M., 2016. Report IEA-PVPS T1-28:2016 Review and Analysis of PV Self-
consumption policies, International Energy Agency, PVPS Programme, 82 p.
Mistretta M.. Guarino F., Trabucco D., Tenorio Rios J.-A., 2016. Guidance to support policy makers in
their policy design and decision making process, Draft/Version 1/Date 4.09.15, IEA-EBC Annex 57
“Evaluation of Embodied Energy and GHG Emissions for Building Construction
Passer A., Lasvaux S., et al 2015. Environmental product declarations entering the building sector: critical
reflections based on 5 to 10 years experience in different European countries, Int J Life Cycle Assess
20:1199–1220
Passer A., Baloutski M., Lützkendorf T., Kreiner H., 2016. Guidelines for Construction Product
Manufacturers, Draft/Version 0.9/Date 04.04.16. IEA-EBC Annex 57 “Evaluation of Embodied Energy
and GHG Emissions for Building Construction
Sartori I., Napolitano A., Voss K. 2012. Net zero energy buildings: A consistent definition framework,
Energy and Buildings 48 (2012) 220–232
SIA, 2010. Merkblatt 2032: Graue Energie von Gebäuden. Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und
Architektenverein (SIA), Zurich
SIA, 2011. Merkblatt 2039: Mobilität – Energiebedarf in Abhängigkeit vom Gebäudestandort.
Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein (SIA), Zurich
SIA, 2011. Merkblatt 2040: SIA-Effizienzpfad Energie. Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und
Architektenverein (SIA), Zurich
Sørnes K., Sartori I., Fredriksen E., Martinsson F., Romero A.,Rodriguze F., Schneuwly P. 2014 ZenN –
Nearly Zero Energy Neighborhoods project : Final report on common definition for nZEB renovation, 89
p.
Venus D. et al, 2015. "Evaluation of the impact and relevance of different energy related renovation
measures on selected Case Studies", Annex 56 Report, final version, November 2015.
82
Voss, K.; Sartori, I.;Napolitano, A.; Geier, S.; Gonzalves, H.; Hall, M.; Heiselberg, P.; Widén, J.;
Candanedo, JA.; Musall, E., Karlsson, B.. & Torcellini, P.; 2010, "Load Matching and Grid Interaction of
Net Zero Energy Buildings". in Proceedings of EuroSun 2010: International Conference on Solar
Heating, Cooling and Buildings, 28 September - 1 October 2010, Graz, Austria. TAPIR Akademisk
Forlag.
Wittstock, B.; Gantner, J.; Lenz, K.; Saunders, T.; Anderson, J.; Carter, C.; Gyetvai, Z.; Kreissig, J.;
Braune, A.; Lasvaux, S.; Bosdevigie, B.; Bazzana, M.; Schiopu, N.; Jayr, E.; Nibel, S.; Chevalier, J.;
Hans, J.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P.; Gazulla, C.; Mundy, J.-A.; Barrow-Williams, T.; Sjöström, C.; 2012a:
EeBGuide - Operational guidance for Life Cycle Assessment studies of the Energy Efficient Buildings
Initiative - Part A : Products.
Wittstock, B.; Gantner, J.; Lenz, K.; Saunders, T.; Anderson, J.; Carter, C.; Gyetvai, Z.; Kreissig, J.;
Braune, A.; Lasvaux, S.; Bosdevigie, B.; Bazzana, M.; Schiopu, N.; Jayr, E.; Nibel, S.; Chevalier, J.;
Hans, J.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P.; Gazulla, C.; Mundy, J.-A.; Barrow-Williams, T.; Sjöström, C.; 2012b:
EeBGuide - Operational guidance for Life Cycle Assessment studies of the Energy Efficient Buildings
Initiative - Part B: Buildings.
83
EBC is a programme of the International Energy Agency (IEA)
www.iea-ebc.org